5 ms·

> Are you objecting to the general concept of CSAM scanning, something every online storage provider does? Not really. I'm just saying it's laughable to think

> Are you objecting to the general concept of CSAM scanning, something every online storage provider does? Not really. I'm just saying it's laughable to think that CSAM scanning in its current form is critically important. Maybe it's critically important for feelgood and PR but not for actually preventing child abuse. It's almost like saying scanning for catalogued images of violence stops violence. If it only were that easy, damn, the world would be a good place. Now as to what online providers should or shouldn't do, I can't say. But a part of me hopes that they continue the march towards egregious censorship and privacy violations so that people would eventually 𝐖𝐀𝐊𝐄 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐅𝐔𝐂𝐊 𝐔𝐏 and realize that there's no way to have freedom and privacy when you're handing your life to corporations and proprietary software. I really do wish for a world that is de-facto free software and fully controlled by the user. As for iCould, I have no skin in the game. I've never used an Apple product.

short_sells_poo 5y ago
Unfortunately this clearly won't happen because of the staggering amount of people even on HN who see nothing wrong with having on-device scanners reporting back to HQ. I'm seriously baffled by the number of apologists and people who see nothing wrong with this or who flat out refuse to admit that this can lead to abuse. Once the on-device scanning Pandora's box is open, it's trivial for governments to request more stuff to be added to the databases and Apple can't claim the defense of "we have no such ability currently" anymore. If I was paranoid I'd wonder how much astroturfing is going on here.
- xpe 5y ago
  > Unfortunately this clearly won't happen because of the staggering amount of people even on HN who see nothing wrong with having on-device scanners reporting back to HQ. This is a mischaracterization of many of the arguments. short_sells: My goal here is meta-goal: I am not trying to change your mind on this issue; rather I want you to acknowledge the strongest rational forms of disagreement. This is a complex issue. It is non obvious how to trade off goals of protecting kids, protecting privacy, minimizing surveillance, catching predators, and dealing with the effects of false positives. It is too simplistic (and self defeating) to think that just because people disagree with a particular conclusion that they are not allies with many of your goals.
  - short_sells_poo 5y ago
    Yes, but we have seen in the past that privacy once lost is nigh impossible to regain, and it is also obvious that the scanning Apple is proposing is trivial to bypass. So what is it actually trying to accomplish? I really struggle to believe that they are trying to protect kids (out of the goodness of their hearts). The only explanation I can think of is that this is some attempt at appeasing government agencies.
    - xpe 5y ago
      Below, I'm going to push back on what I see as overconfident and overgeneralized claims. Both of these can inhibit understanding and listening. > but we have seen in the past that privacy once lost is nigh impossible to regain Yes, this is a key argument in the mix. Some follow up questions: 1. As I understand it, here on HN, we are an international audience of various ages. With that in mind, I don't know your contextual experience. Are you scoping this (a) to the internet era (roughly 2000 to present)? / (b) to particular countries? 2. The statement quoted above is stated as if it is a fact, but I hope you realize it is actually a prediction. What is the historical context for this prediction? How far out into the future are you predicting? 3. Can you pin down your prediction more precisely? What does "nigh" mean? (There is a lot of variation in what "approximately" means to different people. Often the 'exceptions' are quite informative.) 4. The argument, as written, is quite general, which makes it hard to discuss. Whose privacy and in what context? Chinese citizens searching the internet? Journalists doing investigative reporting? Americans shopping in surveilled supermarkets? (Think of this as an opportunity to explain) 5. Do you mean all of the above? If you do, yes, people say that online privacy has eroded in many senses. At the same time, the tools for encryption have become more powerful, understood, and used. My point: if you make a very general statement, it is only fair if you cover the full range here. In summary, with the above questions, I want to both better understand you -and- push back too. Unfortunately, I don't find the discussion chain above (the ~3 ancestors) particularly persuasive. I say this even though I agree with some aspects of it. So you know where I'm coming from: in almost all situations, I've found it is more effective to understand, discuss, explain, persuade rather than 'writing off' a group of people because you don't really understand them. P.S. I've addressed your other points in a sibling comment.
- xpe 5y ago
  > If I was paranoid I'd wonder how much astroturfing is going on here. Ah, good old apophasis: > a rhetorical device wherein the speaker or writer brings up a subject by either denying it, or denying that it should be brought up. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophasis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophasis In relation to https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html : > Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken.
  - noptd 5y ago
    Ironic considering you posted this replying to a comment that you already replied to ten hours earlier. If one was paranoid, they might wonder if you forgot to switch accounts /s
    - xpe 5y ago
      > Ironic considering you posted this replying to a comment that you already replied to ten hours earlier. How so?

short_sells_poo 5y ago

Unfortunately this clearly won't happen because of the staggering amount of people even on HN who see nothing wrong with having on-device scanners reporting back to HQ. I'm seriously baffled by the number of apologists and people who see nothing wrong with this or who flat out refuse to admit that this can lead to abuse. Once the on-device scanning Pandora's box is open, it's trivial for governments to request more stuff to be added to the databases and Apple can't claim the defense of "we have no such ability currently" anymore. If I was paranoid I'd wonder how much astroturfing is going on here.

xpe 5y ago
> Unfortunately this clearly won't happen because of the staggering amount of people even on HN who see nothing wrong with having on-device scanners reporting back to HQ. This is a mischaracterization of many of the arguments. short_sells: My goal here is meta-goal: I am not trying to change your mind on this issue; rather I want you to acknowledge the strongest rational forms of disagreement. This is a complex issue. It is non obvious how to trade off goals of protecting kids, protecting privacy, minimizing surveillance, catching predators, and dealing with the effects of false positives. It is too simplistic (and self defeating) to think that just because people disagree with a particular conclusion that they are not allies with many of your goals.
- short_sells_poo 5y ago
  Yes, but we have seen in the past that privacy once lost is nigh impossible to regain, and it is also obvious that the scanning Apple is proposing is trivial to bypass. So what is it actually trying to accomplish? I really struggle to believe that they are trying to protect kids (out of the goodness of their hearts). The only explanation I can think of is that this is some attempt at appeasing government agencies.
  - xpe 5y ago
    Below, I'm going to push back on what I see as overconfident and overgeneralized claims. Both of these can inhibit understanding and listening. > but we have seen in the past that privacy once lost is nigh impossible to regain Yes, this is a key argument in the mix. Some follow up questions: 1. As I understand it, here on HN, we are an international audience of various ages. With that in mind, I don't know your contextual experience. Are you scoping this (a) to the internet era (roughly 2000 to present)? / (b) to particular countries? 2. The statement quoted above is stated as if it is a fact, but I hope you realize it is actually a prediction. What is the historical context for this prediction? How far out into the future are you predicting? 3. Can you pin down your prediction more precisely? What does "nigh" mean? (There is a lot of variation in what "approximately" means to different people. Often the 'exceptions' are quite informative.) 4. The argument, as written, is quite general, which makes it hard to discuss. Whose privacy and in what context? Chinese citizens searching the internet? Journalists doing investigative reporting? Americans shopping in surveilled supermarkets? (Think of this as an opportunity to explain) 5. Do you mean all of the above? If you do, yes, people say that online privacy has eroded in many senses. At the same time, the tools for encryption have become more powerful, understood, and used. My point: if you make a very general statement, it is only fair if you cover the full range here. In summary, with the above questions, I want to both better understand you -and- push back too. Unfortunately, I don't find the discussion chain above (the ~3 ancestors) particularly persuasive. I say this even though I agree with some aspects of it. So you know where I'm coming from: in almost all situations, I've found it is more effective to understand, discuss, explain, persuade rather than 'writing off' a group of people because you don't really understand them. P.S. I've addressed your other points in a sibling comment.
xpe 5y ago
> If I was paranoid I'd wonder how much astroturfing is going on here. Ah, good old apophasis: > a rhetorical device wherein the speaker or writer brings up a subject by either denying it, or denying that it should be brought up. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophasis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophasis In relation to https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html : > Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken.
- noptd 5y ago
  Ironic considering you posted this replying to a comment that you already replied to ten hours earlier. If one was paranoid, they might wonder if you forgot to switch accounts /s
  - xpe 5y ago
    > Ironic considering you posted this replying to a comment that you already replied to ten hours earlier. How so?