4 ms·

I am afraid they can not even if all their top heads decide so. Governments saw it can be done, so there is no reason Apple won’t do it for them. China&co pro

I am afraid they can not even if all their top heads decide so. Governments saw it can be done, so there is no reason Apple won’t do it for them. China&co probably already busy writing laws mandating on-device scanning of all media and messages for anything remotely matching Winnie-The-Pooh. Apple won’t have a choice when it is a law of land. They can’t quit China.

systemsignal 5y ago
China can make that regardless of what Apple thinks, that’s totally unrelated to this. Also this technology does not develop similar images, the image has to be essentially identical…
- gzer0 5y ago
  This is incorrect. The images in this link [1], are completely different. One is a cat, one is a dog. Same hash produced for both. [1] https://github.com/anishathalye/neural-hash-collider https://github.com/anishathalye/neural-hash-collider
  - djrogers 5y ago
    That’s a hash collision on the first of two distinct perceptual hashing algorithms that are used before a human review. It’s mind-numbingly unlikely that 2 images would match 2 unique perceptual hashes and a human review and not be the same image.
  - robertoandred 5y ago
    Do you have an example using a version of NeuralHash from less than 9 months ago?
- coolspot 5y ago
  Previously there was no precendent of an on-device content scanning protocol proposed by the top phone manufacturer themselves and even deemed privacy-preserving and secure by them. Now please idividually hash every word of every message on the phone. Then give us all illegal messages that contain _exact_ hash match with the dangerous word “Tianamen”. Government abuse is impossible though: our team of Apple employees here at iCloud-China will manually review them before passing the list to firing squads. Thanks!
  - hypothesis 5y ago
    > idividually hash every word It will likely be a fuzzy match on though crimes. But every citizen will get their budget of 30 or so “security” vouchers, so we can all vent a bit once in a while. Oh and they will also double check it with “totally independent” blacklist on server before running it by a party person last.
dhx 5y ago
Australia is pushing for client-side scanning too: "We know there are a number of solutions that would ensure illegal activity online can be addressed, without weakening encryption and still allowing lawful access to information needed in serious criminal investigations. Solutions include: using certain types of encryption that allow proactive tools to function, implementing proactive detection tools at transmission, rather than on receipt, moving AI and proactive technical tools to the device level."[1] The main problem with client-side scanning is that to have any effectiveness it requires a situation where "Trusted Computing" becomes a legal requirement for sale and use of computing or communications devices, where only registered operating systems can be installed and software can only be installed from registered application stores. And in terms of the Internet, registered operating systems would have to only permit access to registered web services, and registered web services would find themselves quickly unregistered if they allowed end users to execute their own scripts within a browser session. It'd require the end of "General Purpose Computing"[2] e.g. along the lines of regulations such as [3]. Criminals are being pushed increasingly down the Phantom Secure [4] path (developing their own technology that doesn't implement backdoors, client-side scanning, etc), and in response, public policy is increasingly seeking to outlaw[5] "General Purpose Computing" and the current decentralised model of communications. It'll take a long time, but perhaps over the course of the next 20 years we'll see the end of "General Purpose Computing"? [1] https://www.esafety.gov.au/about-us/tech-trends-and-challenges/end-end-encryption https://www.esafety.gov.au/about-us/tech-trends-and-challeng... [2] https://boingboing.net/2012/01/10/lockdown.html https://boingboing.net/2012/01/10/lockdown.html [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10139679 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10139679 [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_Secure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_Secure [5] https://www.esafety.gov.au/about-us/tech-trends-and-challenges/decentralisation https://www.esafety.gov.au/about-us/tech-trends-and-challeng...
- navjack27 5y ago
  If Australia does this then they would expand it to any pictures of a woman or a female presenting humanoid with small breasts as CP
boomboomsubban 5y ago
I keep seeing China getting blamed for this move that was only targeting US phones. While it's definitely possible China would have tried to also force implementation in China, if a government deserves blame for this move it's the US government. I can't understand why so many people see a US company try to spy on US citizens and say China must be at fault.
- grecy 5y ago
  > I can't understand why so many people see a US company try to spy on US citizens and say China must be at fault. This is extremely common - i.e. blame the immigrants stealing jobs, blame the muslims for eroding our religious institutions, blame literally anyone but "us". That's because it's so much easier to blame someone else for our own societal problems.

systemsignal 5y ago

China can make that regardless of what Apple thinks, that’s totally unrelated to this. Also this technology does not develop similar images, the image has to be essentially identical…

gzer0 5y ago
This is incorrect. The images in this link [1], are completely different. One is a cat, one is a dog. Same hash produced for both. [1] https://github.com/anishathalye/neural-hash-collider https://github.com/anishathalye/neural-hash-collider
- djrogers 5y ago
  That’s a hash collision on the first of two distinct perceptual hashing algorithms that are used before a human review. It’s mind-numbingly unlikely that 2 images would match 2 unique perceptual hashes and a human review and not be the same image.
- robertoandred 5y ago
  Do you have an example using a version of NeuralHash from less than 9 months ago?
coolspot 5y ago
Previously there was no precendent of an on-device content scanning protocol proposed by the top phone manufacturer themselves and even deemed privacy-preserving and secure by them. Now please idividually hash every word of every message on the phone. Then give us all illegal messages that contain _exact_ hash match with the dangerous word “Tianamen”. Government abuse is impossible though: our team of Apple employees here at iCloud-China will manually review them before passing the list to firing squads. Thanks!
- hypothesis 5y ago
  > idividually hash every word It will likely be a fuzzy match on though crimes. But every citizen will get their budget of 30 or so “security” vouchers, so we can all vent a bit once in a while. Oh and they will also double check it with “totally independent” blacklist on server before running it by a party person last.

dhx 5y ago

Australia is pushing for client-side scanning too: "We know there are a number of solutions that would ensure illegal activity online can be addressed, without weakening encryption and still allowing lawful access to information needed in serious criminal investigations. Solutions include: using certain types of encryption that allow proactive tools to function, implementing proactive detection tools at transmission, rather than on receipt, moving AI and proactive technical tools to the device level."[1] The main problem with client-side scanning is that to have any effectiveness it requires a situation where "Trusted Computing" becomes a legal requirement for sale and use of computing or communications devices, where only registered operating systems can be installed and software can only be installed from registered application stores. And in terms of the Internet, registered operating systems would have to only permit access to registered web services, and registered web services would find themselves quickly unregistered if they allowed end users to execute their own scripts within a browser session. It'd require the end of "General Purpose Computing"[2] e.g. along the lines of regulations such as [3]. Criminals are being pushed increasingly down the Phantom Secure [4] path (developing their own technology that doesn't implement backdoors, client-side scanning, etc), and in response, public policy is increasingly seeking to outlaw[5] "General Purpose Computing" and the current decentralised model of communications. It'll take a long time, but perhaps over the course of the next 20 years we'll see the end of "General Purpose Computing"? [1] https://www.esafety.gov.au/about-us/tech-trends-and-challenges/end-end-encryption https://www.esafety.gov.au/about-us/tech-trends-and-challeng... [2] https://boingboing.net/2012/01/10/lockdown.html https://boingboing.net/2012/01/10/lockdown.html [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10139679 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10139679 [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_Secure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_Secure [5] https://www.esafety.gov.au/about-us/tech-trends-and-challenges/decentralisation https://www.esafety.gov.au/about-us/tech-trends-and-challeng...

navjack27 5y ago
If Australia does this then they would expand it to any pictures of a woman or a female presenting humanoid with small breasts as CP

boomboomsubban 5y ago

I keep seeing China getting blamed for this move that was only targeting US phones. While it's definitely possible China would have tried to also force implementation in China, if a government deserves blame for this move it's the US government. I can't understand why so many people see a US company try to spy on US citizens and say China must be at fault.

grecy 5y ago
> I can't understand why so many people see a US company try to spy on US citizens and say China must be at fault. This is extremely common - i.e. blame the immigrants stealing jobs, blame the muslims for eroding our religious institutions, blame literally anyone but "us". That's because it's so much easier to blame someone else for our own societal problems.