8 ms·

> [...] and the parental notification system is a shift away from strong end-to-end encryption. That particular statement doesn't make much sense to me. The pa

by tpush 5y ago

> [...] and the parental notification system is a shift away from strong end-to-end encryption. That particular statement doesn't make much sense to me. The parental notification system is just a frontend action (one of many, like link previews and such). What does that have to do with iMessage's encryption? I can see an argument about a shift away from privacy (though it only pertains to minors under 13 receiving sexually explicit images). But I think it's misleading to say that it relates to iMessage's encryption in any way.

shuckles 5y ago
EFF would probably argue that technologies like safe browsing are also a shift away from E2E encryption. They were strongly against email spam protection in the 90s for this reason.
- aaomidi 5y ago
  You mean when they said blanket banning email lists is bad and shouldn't be done? Because yeah that's still true.
  - shuckles 5y ago
    That was in the 2000s and a different issue and not opposed on privacy grounds. There they argued they were defending freedom of speech. In the 90s the argument was against early probabilistic models.
- vimacs2 5y ago
  Framing the EFF's position as being against browser safety or spam protection is disingenuous.
  - shuckles 5y ago
    I didn’t say they were against either. I said their opposition to iMessage parental control features as a change to E2E encryption translates directly to other messages client safety features that may reveal the content of communication to a third party. (Nobody in the discourse seems to take their FUD about iMessage seriously, given that the focus has largely been on known CSAM detection.) In particular, you can be concerned about E2E encryption being compromised while still believing parents should have some transparency over whether their kids are receiving explicit images. Not clear EFF offers a solution that meets both, but I did not say they are opposed to the latter.
- slownews45 5y ago
  I remember those arguments against spam filtering! Now we all accept it as annoying but necessary? My guess is this may meet a similar fate.
GuB-42 5y ago
It is not about the encryption, it is about what an "end" is. Generally, we consider the "end" to be the end user. If someone else can see the message along the way, it is not end to end anymore from a user perspective, even if it is from a network perspective. And Apple has complete control over your device through software updates. So that the leak is from your device or from the network is a mostly meaningless technical detail.
- simondotau 5y ago
  As a parent, I consider myself the "end user" of my child's device, not my child. That I might be looped in on any messages sent or received by this device is not at all a leak, it's a convenience—much like how I can receive messages sent to me on my phone and my laptop.
  - GuB-42 5y ago
    When someone sends a message to your child, the message is for your child, not for you. Your child is the "end point" and you are an evesdropper. This is a case where I think it is justified, as long as your child is a minor and you are his legal guardian. But as acceptable as it is, you are still a spy and the app is spyware. The fears, justified or not, is that the same feature that can be used for parental control can also be used on adults without their consent. Personally, I think that right now, the fears are overblown, but I also think that Apple got the backlash they deserved. Privacy is not to be taken lightly, it is something that both protects freedom and helps criminals, also a strong political stance. It is not just a marketing took against Google.
    - simondotau 5y ago
      > But as acceptable as it is, you are still a spy and the app is spyware. I vehemently disagree that a feature could be classed as spyware if it clearly and unambiguously declares exactly what it's going to do prior offering a choice whether or not to do it. By that logic, the mere presence of a "report phishing" button in any cloud email service would be sufficient to declare it as spyware. But fine, whatever. You're welcome to call any form of parental oversight of a child below the age of thirteen "spyware" if you like, so long as you accept that it's entirely my choice as a parent. This feature isn't on by default. If your opinions as a parent are different, don't turn it on. It's not your place to deny me access to this opt-in tool which can help keep my child safe.
dannyobrien 5y ago
They went into this in more detail in 2019: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/11/why-adding-client-side-scanning-breaks-end-end-encryption https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/11/why-adding-client-side...

by tpush 5y ago

shuckles 5y ago

EFF would probably argue that technologies like safe browsing are also a shift away from E2E encryption. They were strongly against email spam protection in the 90s for this reason.

aaomidi 5y ago
You mean when they said blanket banning email lists is bad and shouldn't be done? Because yeah that's still true.
- shuckles 5y ago
  That was in the 2000s and a different issue and not opposed on privacy grounds. There they argued they were defending freedom of speech. In the 90s the argument was against early probabilistic models.
vimacs2 5y ago
Framing the EFF's position as being against browser safety or spam protection is disingenuous.
- shuckles 5y ago
  I didn’t say they were against either. I said their opposition to iMessage parental control features as a change to E2E encryption translates directly to other messages client safety features that may reveal the content of communication to a third party. (Nobody in the discourse seems to take their FUD about iMessage seriously, given that the focus has largely been on known CSAM detection.) In particular, you can be concerned about E2E encryption being compromised while still believing parents should have some transparency over whether their kids are receiving explicit images. Not clear EFF offers a solution that meets both, but I did not say they are opposed to the latter.
slownews45 5y ago
I remember those arguments against spam filtering! Now we all accept it as annoying but necessary? My guess is this may meet a similar fate.

GuB-42 5y ago

It is not about the encryption, it is about what an "end" is. Generally, we consider the "end" to be the end user. If someone else can see the message along the way, it is not end to end anymore from a user perspective, even if it is from a network perspective. And Apple has complete control over your device through software updates. So that the leak is from your device or from the network is a mostly meaningless technical detail.

simondotau 5y ago
As a parent, I consider myself the "end user" of my child's device, not my child. That I might be looped in on any messages sent or received by this device is not at all a leak, it's a convenience—much like how I can receive messages sent to me on my phone and my laptop.
- GuB-42 5y ago
  When someone sends a message to your child, the message is for your child, not for you. Your child is the "end point" and you are an evesdropper. This is a case where I think it is justified, as long as your child is a minor and you are his legal guardian. But as acceptable as it is, you are still a spy and the app is spyware. The fears, justified or not, is that the same feature that can be used for parental control can also be used on adults without their consent. Personally, I think that right now, the fears are overblown, but I also think that Apple got the backlash they deserved. Privacy is not to be taken lightly, it is something that both protects freedom and helps criminals, also a strong political stance. It is not just a marketing took against Google.
  - simondotau 5y ago
    > But as acceptable as it is, you are still a spy and the app is spyware. I vehemently disagree that a feature could be classed as spyware if it clearly and unambiguously declares exactly what it's going to do prior offering a choice whether or not to do it. By that logic, the mere presence of a "report phishing" button in any cloud email service would be sufficient to declare it as spyware. But fine, whatever. You're welcome to call any form of parental oversight of a child below the age of thirteen "spyware" if you like, so long as you accept that it's entirely my choice as a parent. This feature isn't on by default. If your opinions as a parent are different, don't turn it on. It's not your place to deny me access to this opt-in tool which can help keep my child safe.

dannyobrien 5y ago

They went into this in more detail in 2019: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/11/why-adding-client-side-scanning-breaks-end-end-encryption https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/11/why-adding-client-side...