4 ms·

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 b

by 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?
    - zepto 5y ago
      > You leave and hope that he doesn’t You’re both proving the point. Nobody said the man had done anything wrong, and yet you are assuming he did simply because someone asked a question and recommending that people act on this false impression. That is exactly the goal of innuendo.
      - jjulius 5y ago
        Your scenario around leaving and whether or not the man will hit his wife was flawed from the start. Given the context of this broader conversation - Apple implementing a new photo-scanning system - one assumes that with the way you left the beginning of your scenario open to interpretation/assumption, that you are leaving after he's already hit his wife (in this case, Apple implementing the CSAM scanning) and hoping he doesn't do it again (Apple scanning for different content in the future). You would do well to better set up your hypothetical scenario next time, perhaps clarifying that you haven't actually witnessed any violence firsthand prior to your departure. But again, since you continue to avoid what I'm asking: >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? and perhaps more curiously >What is so wrong about being aware of possibilities and remaining vigilant?

by zepto 5y ago

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?
  - zepto 5y ago
    > You leave and hope that he doesn’t You’re both proving the point. Nobody said the man had done anything wrong, and yet you are assuming he did simply because someone asked a question and recommending that people act on this false impression. That is exactly the goal of innuendo.
    - jjulius 5y ago
      Your scenario around leaving and whether or not the man will hit his wife was flawed from the start. Given the context of this broader conversation - Apple implementing a new photo-scanning system - one assumes that with the way you left the beginning of your scenario open to interpretation/assumption, that you are leaving after he's already hit his wife (in this case, Apple implementing the CSAM scanning) and hoping he doesn't do it again (Apple scanning for different content in the future). You would do well to better set up your hypothetical scenario next time, perhaps clarifying that you haven't actually witnessed any violence firsthand prior to your departure. But again, since you continue to avoid what I'm asking: >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? and perhaps more curiously >What is so wrong about being aware of possibilities and remaining vigilant?