3 ms·
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
by 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 agoHaving 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.