3 ms·

> if you think a tech giant that’s partnered in a surveillance program with the NSA isn’t going to share anything they feel like with the government In that ca

> if you think a tech giant that’s partnered in a surveillance program with the NSA isn’t going to share anything they feel like with the government In that case, nothing is stopping them from scanning everything already uploaded anyway, and nothing is stopping them pushing code to your device to scan it without telling you about it. Nothing is stopping them or the government from making these "lists" anyway. I'm not saying you (or anyone) should trust Apple, but if you already don't - then this changes literally nothing.

AmericanChopper 5y ago
By my own personal assessment it changes the way I view them, because this is the most overtly anti-user, anti-privacy thing they’ve ever done. Perhaps I should have never had any level of trust for them, but you live and learn I guess. Feel free to respond to my point about the alert catalog inevitably being leaked and ruining lives. Or you could just have a go at gaslighting me a little more if you prefer.
- misnome 5y ago
  Gaslighting? Your proposed scenario is: - Send colliding images - image gets uploaded to icloud automatically - image _also_ collides with private hash <- completely unclear how this happens - Only the colliding images are looked at by apple and are determined to be innocent - user goes on a list (This is an imagined scenario) - User is reported to law enforcement even though the images are innocent (This is an imagined scenario) - Law enforcement uses this hypothetical report to file a warrant (This is an imagined scenario) - Law enforcement uses the hypothetical warrant to extract images that are completely innocent, and somehow build a case around this - The "List", which is entirely a hypothetical of yours, "leaks" (This is an imagined scenario) Which also requires: - Apple does not counter the meaning of "the list" - Apple is not sued for vast quantities of money I expect the first argument is that none of this matters as long as "the idea" is out there, the reputational damage is already done. Except if that's true, then none of this is necessary at all, just make the accusation. So, sure, continue to thread the needle between "They are automatically sending all information to the government, so promises are meaningless" and "This new process, on top of them potentially sending all information to the government, somehow makes it worse". I mean, this is all a million times more difficult and less likely than just, like, sending them CP in the first place. Or uploading it to their Gmail or any other cloud they use. Or just send a report that they have it to the police without actually doing anything.
  - AmericanChopper 5y ago
    That’s absolutely not an accurate representation of what I’ve said, or how this system works. All it requires is somebody to send somebody else a colliding image. This will send an event to Apple. There is nothing imaginary about that, it is exactly how the system works. Now that Apple has this information, the only thing left is for it to be leaked or compromised in some way. This is much simpler than the scenario you’ve described, because they require the attacker to first commit the crime of possessing CP. Its also possible to do without tipping off the victim in any way. Apple, in case you didn’t know, is a company that had already been the source of a couple of the most notorious data breaches ever (and has somehow managed to so far avoid getting “sued for vast quantities of money” for them). What you’re trying to do here is quintessential gaslighting.

AmericanChopper 5y ago

By my own personal assessment it changes the way I view them, because this is the most overtly anti-user, anti-privacy thing they’ve ever done. Perhaps I should have never had any level of trust for them, but you live and learn I guess. Feel free to respond to my point about the alert catalog inevitably being leaked and ruining lives. Or you could just have a go at gaslighting me a little more if you prefer.

misnome 5y ago
Gaslighting? Your proposed scenario is: - Send colliding images - image gets uploaded to icloud automatically - image _also_ collides with private hash <- completely unclear how this happens - Only the colliding images are looked at by apple and are determined to be innocent - user goes on a list (This is an imagined scenario) - User is reported to law enforcement even though the images are innocent (This is an imagined scenario) - Law enforcement uses this hypothetical report to file a warrant (This is an imagined scenario) - Law enforcement uses the hypothetical warrant to extract images that are completely innocent, and somehow build a case around this - The "List", which is entirely a hypothetical of yours, "leaks" (This is an imagined scenario) Which also requires: - Apple does not counter the meaning of "the list" - Apple is not sued for vast quantities of money I expect the first argument is that none of this matters as long as "the idea" is out there, the reputational damage is already done. Except if that's true, then none of this is necessary at all, just make the accusation. So, sure, continue to thread the needle between "They are automatically sending all information to the government, so promises are meaningless" and "This new process, on top of them potentially sending all information to the government, somehow makes it worse". I mean, this is all a million times more difficult and less likely than just, like, sending them CP in the first place. Or uploading it to their Gmail or any other cloud they use. Or just send a report that they have it to the police without actually doing anything.
- AmericanChopper 5y ago
  That’s absolutely not an accurate representation of what I’ve said, or how this system works. All it requires is somebody to send somebody else a colliding image. This will send an event to Apple. There is nothing imaginary about that, it is exactly how the system works. Now that Apple has this information, the only thing left is for it to be leaked or compromised in some way. This is much simpler than the scenario you’ve described, because they require the attacker to first commit the crime of possessing CP. Its also possible to do without tipping off the victim in any way. Apple, in case you didn’t know, is a company that had already been the source of a couple of the most notorious data breaches ever (and has somehow managed to so far avoid getting “sued for vast quantities of money” for them). What you’re trying to do here is quintessential gaslighting.