4 ms·

Does anyone know Apple's internal motives and why they enables CSAM in the first place? They must have known the consequences, PR and otherwise.

unicornmama 5y ago
A wise financier once advised me to “never underestimate the stupidity of management”
mercora 5y ago
its probably not their real internal motive but i think it is somewhat interesting that they've done it in a way that was publicly discussed, sparking valuable debates over this and similar practices and forcing people consciously and governments even publicly to decide upon if they like this or not. I also think it could be a nice way out of this negative PR if they just claim they wanted to open the debate over this apparently not so uncommon practice of scanning user data independent of if it is on-device or not...
safog 5y ago
/shrugs Companies try to do stupid things and end up with egg on their face all the time. They'll backtrack from this and people will forget it ever happened in a few months.
- toxik 5y ago
  They absolutely won't backtrack from this, the damage is done and it was hardly noticed by mainstream news outlets.
- Rd6n6 5y ago
  Peoples goodwill and trust towards Apple used to be overwhelming and viral on hn and in privacy communities. I don’t think that’s as easy to get back as people are saying - what they had was rare and powerful
  - shuckles 5y ago
    What use is all that goodwill if a solution which attempts to thread some incredibly complex trade offs in a way that innovates on the status quo in every possible way is met with skepticism that is rooted in mistrust of government and not Apple (ignoring the even greater numbers of ignorant or false concerns that have been posted)?
  - rootusrootus 5y ago
    > what they had I am unconvinced they've lost it. There is a lot of noise right now, but how much of that is coming from people who already hated Apple? Out in the real world, even people who've heard something about this largely don't care. It's a tempest in a teapot -- granted, a little larger than usual, but it's easy to fall into the fallacy that everyone else should care the way HN does about something. And this topic seems to be pretty divisive, almost political in nature.
  - deltron3030 5y ago
    Trust was the advantage they had over FB, who will be their main competitor in AR. Kinda reminds of GOT and the biggest mistake of the "good guys", they left the dead dragon in the ice which then later burned down the wall and accomplished the "impossible". FB might use this to crush Apple in the future.
  - skinkestek 5y ago
    Agree. Remember, Google was so nice and held in so high esteem that even valid criticism could be downvoted mercilessly. Today you can run a karma farm on criticizing Google here on HN. Google had mountains of goodwill, but with smart people, dedication and hard work one can burn true it like they did. I'm afraid Apple can manage this too...
LatteLazy 5y ago
My unproven theory is that they're moving away from tech savey users (who won't like this) towards soccer mums (who want this sort of thing and all the parental control stuff they've been doing recently and the weird no porn on tumblr thing etc). The second market is bigger and less discerning. Its a purely economic decision: come and bring your kids to our nice safe child-proof walled garden. There is also the parallel requirement in places like China and Russia to police what people have on their phones. This move clearly differentiates Apple from other Western tech companies and maybe protects them from bans in big and fast growing markets.
- Grustaf 5y ago
  Given that they have over a billion users, they are already a mass product. Was iPhone ever aimed at "tech savvy"?
user_7832 5y ago
Well I had a totally batshit-wild theory so feel free to dismiss this... Remember those NSO iOS security revelations from a few weeks back? It might be quite possible that the government(s, specifically the US) are handling some information over in exchange for this. It would make sense for Apple to reach out to the government and get information about some of the vulnerabilities in exchange for brownie points, because this CSAM system is totally controllable by Apple while unknown security issues aren't. Now whether Apple designed this only with CSAM and actually ignored/forgot its possible issues.. that's another question.
- bitexploder 5y ago
  Wouldn't this system have taken more than a few weeks to develop?
  - user_7832 5y ago
    Valid point. They might have been developing the tech for a while, perhaps this was an opportune moment to release it? Anyway I'm just making a wild guess (as I had mentioned), and I'm not really sure why people were surprised when something I'd mentioned as a wild theory, was, in fact, a wild theory. I'm almost certainly wrong but it's still a theory.
lowkey_ 5y ago
Note: not defending Apple's implementation here. > why they enables CSAM in the first place? Apple's privacy measures, such as not scanning your Cloud photos, is what helps enable CSAM. Sexual abusers very often take photos and often upload these to their communities, and Apple has given them a secure device with which to do that. This is becoming increasingly widespread — the number of reported CSAM material grew by more than 50% last year, to nearly 70 million images and videos [1]. Due to Apple's privacy, the numbers look like this: Facebook reported over 50 million combined images and videos, Google reported 3.5 million, Dropbox, Microsoft, Snap, and Twitter over 100,000 images and videos. Apple reported only 3,000 photos in the same period, and no videos. [1] Sexual abuse is experienced at some point in childhood by around 1 in 9 girls, and 1 in 53 boys. 93% of perpetrators are known to the victim. In 2016, CPS substantiated or found strong evidence to indicate sexual abuse of 57,329 children [2]. That's CPS, meaning in the US alone. > They must have known the consequences, PR and otherwise. The PR consequences of that have gone largely unnoticed, interestingly, and it's more so their attempts to curb it that are getting flak from the media. I suspect this is because we can't create statistics on what we can't detect. There can be no "Apple is enabling, and allowing to continue, the sexual abuse of 50,000 children a year." [1] 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... [2] https://www.rainn.org/statistics/children-and-teens https://www.rainn.org/statistics/children-and-teens
- giearff 5y ago
  First of all, the topic is CSAM, so images videos and the like, not general abuse. I imagine CSAM production is substantially more rare since abuse is a precondition. Secondly, I don’t believe those statistics at all. You’re telling me 11% of girls have been sexually abused? That’s preposterous. There’s gotta be some selection bias or misreporting.
  - lowkey_ 5y ago
    I edited the post to add images and videos statistics — it's frighteningly common. The numbers are correct and it's shocking and heart-wrenching; here's a linked study [1], but there are many. I went to college in Boston, where the Boston Globe broke a scandal that around 150 Catholic priests in Boston were accused of sexual abuse, with more than 500 victims [2] [3]. It was immensely tough to grasp and accept that in a small city like Boston, that many priests were sexually abusing children. [1] http://www.unh.edu/ccrc/pdf/9248.pdf http://www.unh.edu/ccrc/pdf/9248.pdf [2] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/apr/21/boston-globe-abuse-scandal-catholic https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/apr/21/boston-globe-a... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Archdiocese_of_Boston_sex_abuse_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Archdiocese_of_Boston...
gjsman-1000 5y ago
One speculated motive is that Apple wanted an End-to-End Encryption system for iCloud, but the FBI put immense pressure in 2018 internally to shut that project down because it could spread CSAM, among other things. Then in 2020, there was the EARN IT Act proposal, which nearly passed and would have required scanning for CSAM on pretty much every online platform that wanted Section 230 immunity. Apple puts two and two together, realizes Congress is concerned about CSAM's spread and isn't interested in changing, and still wants E2EE on iCloud. OK, put the scanning client-side, then the way is paved for E2EE iCloud because the FBI's biggest argument against E2EE is neutralized, and so is Congress' argument for EARN IT (which would basically have banned E2EE).
tlogan 5y ago
Pressure from government(s). We are just one stupid terrorist attack to make this framework acts as a dragnet for catching “terrorists” and “terrorist sympathizers”.

unicornmama 5y ago

A wise financier once advised me to “never underestimate the stupidity of management”

mercora 5y ago

its probably not their real internal motive but i think it is somewhat interesting that they've done it in a way that was publicly discussed, sparking valuable debates over this and similar practices and forcing people consciously and governments even publicly to decide upon if they like this or not. I also think it could be a nice way out of this negative PR if they just claim they wanted to open the debate over this apparently not so uncommon practice of scanning user data independent of if it is on-device or not...

safog 5y ago

/shrugs Companies try to do stupid things and end up with egg on their face all the time. They'll backtrack from this and people will forget it ever happened in a few months.

toxik 5y ago
They absolutely won't backtrack from this, the damage is done and it was hardly noticed by mainstream news outlets.
Rd6n6 5y ago
Peoples goodwill and trust towards Apple used to be overwhelming and viral on hn and in privacy communities. I don’t think that’s as easy to get back as people are saying - what they had was rare and powerful
- shuckles 5y ago
  What use is all that goodwill if a solution which attempts to thread some incredibly complex trade offs in a way that innovates on the status quo in every possible way is met with skepticism that is rooted in mistrust of government and not Apple (ignoring the even greater numbers of ignorant or false concerns that have been posted)?
- rootusrootus 5y ago
  > what they had I am unconvinced they've lost it. There is a lot of noise right now, but how much of that is coming from people who already hated Apple? Out in the real world, even people who've heard something about this largely don't care. It's a tempest in a teapot -- granted, a little larger than usual, but it's easy to fall into the fallacy that everyone else should care the way HN does about something. And this topic seems to be pretty divisive, almost political in nature.
- deltron3030 5y ago
  Trust was the advantage they had over FB, who will be their main competitor in AR. Kinda reminds of GOT and the biggest mistake of the "good guys", they left the dead dragon in the ice which then later burned down the wall and accomplished the "impossible". FB might use this to crush Apple in the future.
- skinkestek 5y ago
  Agree. Remember, Google was so nice and held in so high esteem that even valid criticism could be downvoted mercilessly. Today you can run a karma farm on criticizing Google here on HN. Google had mountains of goodwill, but with smart people, dedication and hard work one can burn true it like they did. I'm afraid Apple can manage this too...

LatteLazy 5y ago

My unproven theory is that they're moving away from tech savey users (who won't like this) towards soccer mums (who want this sort of thing and all the parental control stuff they've been doing recently and the weird no porn on tumblr thing etc). The second market is bigger and less discerning. Its a purely economic decision: come and bring your kids to our nice safe child-proof walled garden. There is also the parallel requirement in places like China and Russia to police what people have on their phones. This move clearly differentiates Apple from other Western tech companies and maybe protects them from bans in big and fast growing markets.

Grustaf 5y ago
Given that they have over a billion users, they are already a mass product. Was iPhone ever aimed at "tech savvy"?

user_7832 5y ago

Well I had a totally batshit-wild theory so feel free to dismiss this... Remember those NSO iOS security revelations from a few weeks back? It might be quite possible that the government(s, specifically the US) are handling some information over in exchange for this. It would make sense for Apple to reach out to the government and get information about some of the vulnerabilities in exchange for brownie points, because this CSAM system is totally controllable by Apple while unknown security issues aren't. Now whether Apple designed this only with CSAM and actually ignored/forgot its possible issues.. that's another question.

bitexploder 5y ago
Wouldn't this system have taken more than a few weeks to develop?
- user_7832 5y ago
  Valid point. They might have been developing the tech for a while, perhaps this was an opportune moment to release it? Anyway I'm just making a wild guess (as I had mentioned), and I'm not really sure why people were surprised when something I'd mentioned as a wild theory, was, in fact, a wild theory. I'm almost certainly wrong but it's still a theory.

lowkey_ 5y ago

Note: not defending Apple's implementation here. > why they enables CSAM in the first place? Apple's privacy measures, such as not scanning your Cloud photos, is what helps enable CSAM. Sexual abusers very often take photos and often upload these to their communities, and Apple has given them a secure device with which to do that. This is becoming increasingly widespread — the number of reported CSAM material grew by more than 50% last year, to nearly 70 million images and videos [1]. Due to Apple's privacy, the numbers look like this: Facebook reported over 50 million combined images and videos, Google reported 3.5 million, Dropbox, Microsoft, Snap, and Twitter over 100,000 images and videos. Apple reported only 3,000 photos in the same period, and no videos. [1] Sexual abuse is experienced at some point in childhood by around 1 in 9 girls, and 1 in 53 boys. 93% of perpetrators are known to the victim. In 2016, CPS substantiated or found strong evidence to indicate sexual abuse of 57,329 children [2]. That's CPS, meaning in the US alone. > They must have known the consequences, PR and otherwise. The PR consequences of that have gone largely unnoticed, interestingly, and it's more so their attempts to curb it that are getting flak from the media. I suspect this is because we can't create statistics on what we can't detect. There can be no "Apple is enabling, and allowing to continue, the sexual abuse of 50,000 children a year." [1] 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... [2] https://www.rainn.org/statistics/children-and-teens https://www.rainn.org/statistics/children-and-teens

giearff 5y ago
First of all, the topic is CSAM, so images videos and the like, not general abuse. I imagine CSAM production is substantially more rare since abuse is a precondition. Secondly, I don’t believe those statistics at all. You’re telling me 11% of girls have been sexually abused? That’s preposterous. There’s gotta be some selection bias or misreporting.
- lowkey_ 5y ago
  I edited the post to add images and videos statistics — it's frighteningly common. The numbers are correct and it's shocking and heart-wrenching; here's a linked study [1], but there are many. I went to college in Boston, where the Boston Globe broke a scandal that around 150 Catholic priests in Boston were accused of sexual abuse, with more than 500 victims [2] [3]. It was immensely tough to grasp and accept that in a small city like Boston, that many priests were sexually abusing children. [1] http://www.unh.edu/ccrc/pdf/9248.pdf http://www.unh.edu/ccrc/pdf/9248.pdf [2] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/apr/21/boston-globe-abuse-scandal-catholic https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/apr/21/boston-globe-a... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Archdiocese_of_Boston_sex_abuse_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Archdiocese_of_Boston...

gjsman-1000 5y ago

One speculated motive is that Apple wanted an End-to-End Encryption system for iCloud, but the FBI put immense pressure in 2018 internally to shut that project down because it could spread CSAM, among other things. Then in 2020, there was the EARN IT Act proposal, which nearly passed and would have required scanning for CSAM on pretty much every online platform that wanted Section 230 immunity. Apple puts two and two together, realizes Congress is concerned about CSAM's spread and isn't interested in changing, and still wants E2EE on iCloud. OK, put the scanning client-side, then the way is paved for E2EE iCloud because the FBI's biggest argument against E2EE is neutralized, and so is Congress' argument for EARN IT (which would basically have banned E2EE).

tlogan 5y ago

Pressure from government(s). We are just one stupid terrorist attack to make this framework acts as a dragnet for catching “terrorists” and “terrorist sympathizers”.