4 ms·
> Apple does not report you to law enforcement, as this article claims. The article also ignores human review. They do report you to a private organization who
by breput 5y ago
> Apple does not report you to law enforcement, as this article claims. The article also ignores human review.
They do report you to a private organization who is primarily funded from the US Government and has zero interest in not passing along any information about potential child abusers.
If you believe Apple, there will be a human review element. What sort of people would go after this kind of job? I can't imagine. And this group will also have a huge incentive to err on the side of reporting any potential abuse content.
Edit: A legitimate, almost definitely "wants to the the right thing" private organization in the US. Have we heard about who gets notified in other jurisdictions?
- robertoandred 5y agoThere are human reviewers at Google, Facebook, and every other organization that has to moderate content. Not a novel idea. And why would the NCMEC give law enforcement info about people they know are innocent?
- breput 5y ago> There are human reviewers at Google, Facebook, and every other organization that has to moderate content. Not a novel idea. For unencrypted content uploaded to their servers. That makes it a "Them Problem". Apple's approach is to scan before it is uploaded (and like the article says, "for now" - this can change with only a configuration change for all we know). And this could be a per-jurisdiction option and again, no one would know. You have a point that this is not completely novel problem but do we have actual data on the number of real vs. false positives on the "everyone but Apple" group? Matthew Green probably would know but he doesn't[0]. [0] https://twitter.com/matthew_d_green/status/1428382952858083332 https://twitter.com/matthew_d_green/status/14283829528580833...
- breput 5y agoThere is an website[0] set up already to show to show how easy it is to find collisions with a photo of a beagle. The left side photos are all apparently kitten photos but what if it was a photo of the Nirvana baby and, as a human reviewer, you had no access to the right side photo because it was just a hash in an anonymous database? [0] https://thishashcollisionisnotporn.com/ https://thishashcollisionisnotporn.com/
- judge2020 5y agoThe Nirvana baby, as with many non-sexual pictures of naked babies, isn't considered CSAM and thus wouldn't be flagged. Even if it was, NCMEC reviewers (and Apple reviewers) almost certainly view the original CSAM next to the new photo when they receive potential re-circulations of the photo, if their task is indeed to verify the authenticity of a match. If reviewers had to make a CSAM judgement call on every incoming image, it'd be an extremely brittle system.
- robertoandred 5y agoNo one would know? iOS is constantly analyzed by people around the world for security vulnerabilities, strange behavior, etc. Why would this be different?
- mastazi 5y agoOh well if there are human reviewers then we can be sure there will be no abuse. After all, Youtube copyright strikes have never been abused thanks to the fact that there are human reviewers. Also, no app has ever been incorrectly removed from the Apple App Store, for the same reason that there are human reviewers. This is thanks to the fact that human reviewers never make mistakes, unlike the rest of humans. What could go wrong if we adopt the same system for something that could potentially result in a criminal investigation?
- breput 5y agoHumans are the cause and solution to every problem.
- robertoandred 5y agoSo your concern is that the automatic review fails, Apple’s human review fails, the NCMEC’s human review fails, and police go after you?
- mastazi 5y agoMy concern is that those mechanisms that regularly fail in other domains, as we have seen time and time again in recent years, would also fail in this case. Are you able to explain why this specific case would be different?