3 ms·

Because that door hasn’t been opened yet. “Scan every photo on users devices” or “scan for non-CSAM” are much easier requests once they’ve already started scann

Because that door hasn’t been opened yet. “Scan every photo on users devices” or “scan for non-CSAM” are much easier requests once they’ve already started scanning on-device. It’s just how life and politics work.

anonuser123456 5y ago
The door has been opened for quite some time. What do you think spotlight is? It scans an indexes all your data. What's prevented the government from saying "hey if you see Osama Bin Laden in a spotlight scan, you need to send us all that guys data." The answer is, Apple can just say FU. And that's exactly what will happen here. In particular, the US DOJ needs to stay in Apple's good graces here and not be overly aggressive. If DOJ pulls any funny business, that's a pretty good reason for Apple to just say "OK, we're picking up our toys and going home. You get nothing now and we're turning on E2EE."
- barsonme 5y ago
  I’m sorry, but there is a world of difference between locally indexing files for local search and tagging files as contraband so that they can be reported to the government.
  - naravara 5y ago
    Technically speaking, no there isn’t. It’s just a little bit if metadata you’re sticking on an already long tail of metadata that they’re doing as they index.
    - shuckles 5y ago
      Most importantly, people are arguing that there is new technical risk, so a difference in intent or beneficiaries is not relevant for that argument.
    - barsonme 5y ago
      Being technically similar is irrelevant. It’s completely different in principle, and that’s what matters. A great deal many things are technically similar, but vastly different in principle. And those distinctions are important.
      - snowwrestler 5y ago
        I’m not sure which side you’re arguing here. The biggest concern about Apple’s system is that it’s very easy to add new items to a hash list. That is an argument about the technical similarity of scanning for CSAM and scanning for other things like classified documents (for example). But there is a vast difference in principle. Pretty much everyone wants to stop child abuse. But many people—including major news organizations—believe citizens should sometimes have the opportunity to view classified documents. Different categories of things to scan for will be different in principle, even if the technical approach is similar. This difference in principle is what Apple leans on when they say they will oppose any request to expand their system beyond CSAM.
        nrabulinski 5y ago
        The biggest concern about Apple’s system is that they are showing to all governments and everyone that it’s fine and good to scan for whatever on my device and report me to the government if they see fit, despite years prior refusing to implement backdoors or give access to someone’s device to the FBI. They essentially invalidated all those claims and I can’t see how they’ll now be able to argue back if the US or the Chinas come to Apple saying they have to have more surveillance in their devices.
- riversflow 5y ago
  I'm not a security professional by any means, but this has been my line of thinking on this whole debate for quite a while. It's pretty silly considering what has been made public about the clandestine operations of alphabet agencies,(if you were paying attention to the right channels[1] their was good reason to believe that the 4th amendment was a joke to the Feds long before Snowden's leaks) especially combined with the existences and complete opaqueness of secret FISA Court. Its kinda crazy to me that all these technologists, and especially those on *hacker*news really believe that you have any sort of privacy from the US government, who has demonstrated it can act with complete impunity in most parts of the world for decades. I say especially people here because they should know how just a handful of rogue actors in any given organization could subvert any sort of veil of privacy. I'm not an expert by any means, but it makes complete sense to me that privacy in any large organization is a very delicate thing to maintain when your adversary is as sophisticated and belligerent as the US security and intelligence apparatus appears to be. Maybe I'm just not privy to something, but it seems like if the US national security apparatus want to do something on our or allies soil, they'll find a way. [1]https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/homefront/ https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/homefront/ - aired 15-5-07 and covered the notorious ATT room 641a
- bostik 5y ago
  DOJ can pressure Visa, Mastercard and Amex to stop processing payments for Apple. Due to how the international payments systems work, that's a global sanction, even if Apple had no footprint in US. And before you claim that's absurd and impossible, there is precedent for US doing just that.[0] EDIT: There is also an earlier precedent, UIGEA - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_Internet_Gambling_Enforcement_Act_of_2006 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_Internet_Gambling_Enf... 0: https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/credit-card-companies-wikileaks-block-just-fine-eu-says/ https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/credit-card-... (yes, the blockade was lifted later but my point was that the nuclear option is available)
  - zimpenfish 5y ago
    > DOJ can pressure Visa, Mastercard and Amex to stop processing payments for Apple. I think they'll find there's a world of difference in public support for "people leaking classified documents" vs "the people who make you and your family's phones, tablets, laptops, and watches".

anonuser123456 5y ago

The door has been opened for quite some time. What do you think spotlight is? It scans an indexes all your data. What's prevented the government from saying "hey if you see Osama Bin Laden in a spotlight scan, you need to send us all that guys data." The answer is, Apple can just say FU. And that's exactly what will happen here. In particular, the US DOJ needs to stay in Apple's good graces here and not be overly aggressive. If DOJ pulls any funny business, that's a pretty good reason for Apple to just say "OK, we're picking up our toys and going home. You get nothing now and we're turning on E2EE."

barsonme 5y ago
I’m sorry, but there is a world of difference between locally indexing files for local search and tagging files as contraband so that they can be reported to the government.
- naravara 5y ago
  Technically speaking, no there isn’t. It’s just a little bit if metadata you’re sticking on an already long tail of metadata that they’re doing as they index.
  - shuckles 5y ago
    Most importantly, people are arguing that there is new technical risk, so a difference in intent or beneficiaries is not relevant for that argument.
  - barsonme 5y ago
    Being technically similar is irrelevant. It’s completely different in principle, and that’s what matters. A great deal many things are technically similar, but vastly different in principle. And those distinctions are important.
    - snowwrestler 5y ago
      I’m not sure which side you’re arguing here. The biggest concern about Apple’s system is that it’s very easy to add new items to a hash list. That is an argument about the technical similarity of scanning for CSAM and scanning for other things like classified documents (for example). But there is a vast difference in principle. Pretty much everyone wants to stop child abuse. But many people—including major news organizations—believe citizens should sometimes have the opportunity to view classified documents. Different categories of things to scan for will be different in principle, even if the technical approach is similar. This difference in principle is what Apple leans on when they say they will oppose any request to expand their system beyond CSAM.
      - nrabulinski 5y ago
        The biggest concern about Apple’s system is that they are showing to all governments and everyone that it’s fine and good to scan for whatever on my device and report me to the government if they see fit, despite years prior refusing to implement backdoors or give access to someone’s device to the FBI. They essentially invalidated all those claims and I can’t see how they’ll now be able to argue back if the US or the Chinas come to Apple saying they have to have more surveillance in their devices.
riversflow 5y ago
I'm not a security professional by any means, but this has been my line of thinking on this whole debate for quite a while. It's pretty silly considering what has been made public about the clandestine operations of alphabet agencies,(if you were paying attention to the right channels[1] their was good reason to believe that the 4th amendment was a joke to the Feds long before Snowden's leaks) especially combined with the existences and complete opaqueness of secret FISA Court. Its kinda crazy to me that all these technologists, and especially those on *hacker*news really believe that you have any sort of privacy from the US government, who has demonstrated it can act with complete impunity in most parts of the world for decades. I say especially people here because they should know how just a handful of rogue actors in any given organization could subvert any sort of veil of privacy. I'm not an expert by any means, but it makes complete sense to me that privacy in any large organization is a very delicate thing to maintain when your adversary is as sophisticated and belligerent as the US security and intelligence apparatus appears to be. Maybe I'm just not privy to something, but it seems like if the US national security apparatus want to do something on our or allies soil, they'll find a way. [1]https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/homefront/ https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/homefront/ - aired 15-5-07 and covered the notorious ATT room 641a
bostik 5y ago
DOJ can pressure Visa, Mastercard and Amex to stop processing payments for Apple. Due to how the international payments systems work, that's a global sanction, even if Apple had no footprint in US. And before you claim that's absurd and impossible, there is precedent for US doing just that.[0] EDIT: There is also an earlier precedent, UIGEA - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_Internet_Gambling_Enforcement_Act_of_2006 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_Internet_Gambling_Enf... 0: https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/credit-card-companies-wikileaks-block-just-fine-eu-says/ https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/credit-card-... (yes, the blockade was lifted later but my point was that the nuclear option is available)
- zimpenfish 5y ago
  > DOJ can pressure Visa, Mastercard and Amex to stop processing payments for Apple. I think they'll find there's a world of difference in public support for "people leaking classified documents" vs "the people who make you and your family's phones, tablets, laptops, and watches".