3 ms·

https://twitter.com/matthew_d_green/status/1429963141568401422 https://twitter.com/matthew_d_green/status/14299631415684014...

by spac 5y ago

radicaldreamer 5y ago
Absolutely: https://twitter.com/matthew_d_green/status/1429983703460204544 https://twitter.com/matthew_d_green/status/14299837034602045... I assume each upload is tagged with device ID which first uploaded it etc. but maybe that can be spoofed as well?
- radicaldreamer 5y ago
  There's no real reason to assume this is true, because Apple's systems didn't detect hundreds of accounts being accessed from a single, home IP...
shuckles 5y ago
This Twitter account continues to debase discourse about the child safety proposals with FUD. It posted incorrect information about the proposal before launch and has continued with useless speculation. How many of the hypothesized threat models which don’t pan out has he formally redacted? If you are worried about the security of iCloud, then that can be read as more reason to prefer client side scanning. Of course the tweets are ambiguous about logical implications so you can’t engage with them directly.
- noptd 5y ago
  And I could say that this HN account has been baselessly dismissing valid concerns about the proposal and providing non sequiturs to assert why nobody should be concerned since it was announced. However, stating my opinion as fact in an attempt to invalidate someone else's perspective on the matter would be debasing discourse so I wouldn't do that. None of us should.
  - shuckles 5y ago
    Are you asking me to provide evidence that the account posted false information and never redacted it? How about the very tweets in the linked thread where the account makes fact-free claims about how a “single IP” accessing “hundreds of accounts” (the former of which is not substantiated) suggest iCloud security is fundamentally broken. Of course Matt is smart enough to not state the implication directly, relying instead on sarcasm and FUD. Since you went ahead and stated opinion as fact (while cleverly pretending that you didn’t), can you provide an example where I dismissed a valid concern with a non sequitur? How do you reconcile the accusation that I assert “nobody should be concerned” with comments like this where I clearly outlined why the announcement should be concerning: [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28279776 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28279776 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28165116 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28165116 I’ll go further and say that I have sincere concerns with what was announced, but seeing how that Twitter account seeds legions of incorrect commenters who proliferate (and post intentionally clickbait material on HN, as the poster of this article themselves admitted on this very thread!) led me to the conclusion that Matt is doing plenty of harm, especially since he should know better.

https://twitter.com/matthew_d_green/status/1429963141568401422 https://twitter.com/matthew_d_green/status/14299631415684014...

by spac 5y ago

https://twitter.com/matthew_d_green/status/1429963141568401422 https://twitter.com/matthew_d_green/status/14299631415684014...

radicaldreamer 5y ago

Absolutely: https://twitter.com/matthew_d_green/status/1429983703460204544 https://twitter.com/matthew_d_green/status/14299837034602045... I assume each upload is tagged with device ID which first uploaded it etc. but maybe that can be spoofed as well?

radicaldreamer 5y ago
There's no real reason to assume this is true, because Apple's systems didn't detect hundreds of accounts being accessed from a single, home IP...

shuckles 5y ago

This Twitter account continues to debase discourse about the child safety proposals with FUD. It posted incorrect information about the proposal before launch and has continued with useless speculation. How many of the hypothesized threat models which don’t pan out has he formally redacted? If you are worried about the security of iCloud, then that can be read as more reason to prefer client side scanning. Of course the tweets are ambiguous about logical implications so you can’t engage with them directly.

noptd 5y ago
And I could say that this HN account has been baselessly dismissing valid concerns about the proposal and providing non sequiturs to assert why nobody should be concerned since it was announced. However, stating my opinion as fact in an attempt to invalidate someone else's perspective on the matter would be debasing discourse so I wouldn't do that. None of us should.
- shuckles 5y ago
  Are you asking me to provide evidence that the account posted false information and never redacted it? How about the very tweets in the linked thread where the account makes fact-free claims about how a “single IP” accessing “hundreds of accounts” (the former of which is not substantiated) suggest iCloud security is fundamentally broken. Of course Matt is smart enough to not state the implication directly, relying instead on sarcasm and FUD. Since you went ahead and stated opinion as fact (while cleverly pretending that you didn’t), can you provide an example where I dismissed a valid concern with a non sequitur? How do you reconcile the accusation that I assert “nobody should be concerned” with comments like this where I clearly outlined why the announcement should be concerning: [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28279776 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28279776 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28165116 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28165116 I’ll go further and say that I have sincere concerns with what was announced, but seeing how that Twitter account seeds legions of incorrect commenters who proliferate (and post intentionally clickbait material on HN, as the poster of this article themselves admitted on this very thread!) led me to the conclusion that Matt is doing plenty of harm, especially since he should know better.