3 ms·

I think people are harsher over the intent more than the the hashing algorithm being used (it does exacerbate the problem, though)?

slg 5y ago
Yes, that is the reason behind my comment. The linked site is not criticizing the intent. It is criticizing the hashing algorithm. Therefore this post either shouldn't be part of the criticism of Apple's plan or it should be part of the overall criticism of the tech industry including Google and Microsoft. I don't think the hashing exacerbates the problem because the alternative to Apple's proposal seems like it would be to run the same hash matching on the server like those other companies. That doesn't fix the hash collision problem.
nonbirithm 5y ago
The intent is supposed to be the same as with the usage of PhotoDNA. If anything, this is proof that security by obscurity is an effective strategy not only for hiding activity in a black box, but also preventing potential protesters from ever becoming aware that there was a problem to begin with. I completely agree that the magnitude of the backlash against Apple is not fair in comparison to the backlash against every other tech company using PhotoDNA, and it feels hypocritical to for everyone to have given them a pass for over a decade despite the principle and intent remaining the same.
- nullc 5y ago
  Having a device you own scan your files and report you is fundamentally different from having a server which you submitted plaintext files to search you. I agree both are bad, but Apple's scheme erodes a critical boundary. It would be like if the bank searched your safe deposit box stored in their vault in the course of their business, but then later announced that to reduce the need to search your vault they'd be stationing a spy in your home to inspect the box before you leave for the bank. The spy will secretly report back to the bank if he sees something he suspects, and then the bank will search. With these collision examples, you now learn that the spy will also be tripping balls.

slg 5y ago

Yes, that is the reason behind my comment. The linked site is not criticizing the intent. It is criticizing the hashing algorithm. Therefore this post either shouldn't be part of the criticism of Apple's plan or it should be part of the overall criticism of the tech industry including Google and Microsoft. I don't think the hashing exacerbates the problem because the alternative to Apple's proposal seems like it would be to run the same hash matching on the server like those other companies. That doesn't fix the hash collision problem.

nonbirithm 5y ago

The intent is supposed to be the same as with the usage of PhotoDNA. If anything, this is proof that security by obscurity is an effective strategy not only for hiding activity in a black box, but also preventing potential protesters from ever becoming aware that there was a problem to begin with. I completely agree that the magnitude of the backlash against Apple is not fair in comparison to the backlash against every other tech company using PhotoDNA, and it feels hypocritical to for everyone to have given them a pass for over a decade despite the principle and intent remaining the same.

nullc 5y ago
Having a device you own scan your files and report you is fundamentally different from having a server which you submitted plaintext files to search you. I agree both are bad, but Apple's scheme erodes a critical boundary. It would be like if the bank searched your safe deposit box stored in their vault in the course of their business, but then later announced that to reduce the need to search your vault they'd be stationing a spy in your home to inspect the box before you leave for the bank. The spy will secretly report back to the bank if he sees something he suspects, and then the bank will search. With these collision examples, you now learn that the spy will also be tripping balls.