3 ms·

> If you're going to question my honesty… The questioning is a response to your comment. Do you seriously think that Apple’s second hash function could be ‘re

• nullc 5y ago
  Functionally yes: If apple receives an administrative subpoena to turn over the unfiltered initial matches, then they'll be divulged without further processing. Literally, presumably not, otoh they've outright lied about this system already but I wouldn't think it likely. And when your privacy is compromised your situation will not be improved because the material that mislead you happened to be "technically true".
  • zepto 5y ago
    This is complete and utter bullshit. Firstly it’s a dishonest response since we were talking about how the code worked. But let’s put that aside and consider it anyway. If the code literally returned true, the second hash would have no effect at preventing collisions for any user at any time. As you say, for this to be the case, Apple would need to be lying. A subpoena wouldn’t be issued without cause, would only impact specific individuals, and would have no impact on the general protections provided by the secondary hash at preventing the adversarial attacks proposed. Nothing about this is even close to functionally equivalent to ‘return true’.