8 ms·

Have they ever explained why the csam would be implemented? Apple bends just fine if the government is powerful enough and the marketplace is big enough, see Ch

by yawaworht1978 5y ago

Have they ever explained why the csam would be implemented? Apple bends just fine if the government is powerful enough and the marketplace is big enough, see China.

avianlyric 5y ago
In their defence (I say this with some trepidation), if they want to see their products in another country, then they need to play by that countries rules. Regardless of how we in the west feel about those rules. If a Chinese company came to the US or EU and ignored US or EU rules and lawful directives from government, we would quite rightly be up in arms about that. With regards to CSAM, I think the same applies. After all the CSAM issue only exists because the US government has decided that invasive monitoring is the only way to counter CSAM. I note that no other western country takes such an authoritarian approach to CSAM, an approach that seems to be primarily driving by evangelist Christian keen on outlawing sex in general. As oppose to actually helping victims of CSAM.
- hypothesis 5y ago
  Following laws in countries that one is operating is expected. However, following laws that contradict one’s marketing materials will lead to some understandable questions about those “values”.
  - dilap 5y ago
    I think avianlyric is suggesting Apple didn't have a choice, and that US gov is compelling them to add the CSAM features. Which seems likely to me. † Really "CSAM", since there's no way to verify nor ensure it's only scanning for CSAM. What they are building is a prohibited content scanner, and what it will scan for is whatever governments would like it to scan for.
  - avianlyric 5y ago
    Well do you have a copy of Apple's marketing material from Russia saying that won't censor the app store if compelled to do so by the Russian government? It not reasonable to hold Apple to pledges they've made to western customers, when talking about a service provided to non-western customers. As much as we wish it wasn't true, the scope for providing privacy is substantially greater in the west than it is elsewhere.
    - ByteWelder 5y ago
      > It not reasonable to hold Apple to pledges they've made to western customers, when talking about a service provided to non-western customers. I think it's reasonable: We hold people account across borders for serious violations (extraditions), so it's completely reasonable to hold a company accountable for its serious violations outside of the country that you're buying from. No-one is forcing Apple to support those countries with oppressing citizens either.
    - smoldesu 5y ago
      > Well do you have a copy of Apple's marketing material from Russia saying that won't censor the app store if compelled to do so by the Russian government? Создавая продукты Apple, мы прежде всего заботимся о том, чтобы защитить вашу личную информацию и предоставить вам контроль над ней. [0] Which translates to: When we create Apple products, our primary concern is to protect your data and give you control over it. [0] https://www.apple.com/ru/privacy/ https://www.apple.com/ru/privacy/
- kwere 5y ago
  everybody can use "i was only following orders" as defense in court
  - avianlyric 5y ago
    Try "I was only following the law". I seriously doubt any court would punish you for sincerely trying to follow the law to the best of your ability. Russia is a sovereign nation, with the right to rule as they wish. If you're not happy with there way of life, then I would encourage you to contact your democratic representatives and tell them to either apply greater pressure to the Russian government to live up to our ideals, and follow our laws; and if that fails, declare war.
- Mordisquitos 5y ago
  > In their defence (I say this with some trepidation), if they want to see their products in another country, then they need to play by that countries rules. I understand your trepidation in saying it. That is simply a fact of reality as it stands and how businesses operate under the current incentives, not a value judgement. However, it makes me think that liberal democracies should play hardball. The USA already has the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act [0] and the UK the Bribery Act 2010 [1], which hold their own businesses and citizens criminally liable for business-related corruption in a foreign country. Also, many countries apply universal jurisdiction for crimes such as child abuse [2]. Maybe liberal democracies should start applying a similar set of rules to businesses who are licenced to operate within their country, forbidding them from performing certain types of tasks (e.g. ideological censorship) for any government. I am well aware of how incredibly complex a law of this kind would need to be, but let businesses choose – if they want to operate in the EU, USA, UK, etc. then they need to play by the no political repression rules worldwide. Would losing the markets of repressive regimes not be worth it? Well, they're free to move their headquarters to those countries and lose the liberal democratic market. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Corrupt_Practices_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Corrupt_Practices_Act [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bribery_Act_2010 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bribery_Act_2010 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_jurisdiction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_jurisdiction
  - dilap 5y ago
    I don't think liberal democracies care about these freedoms, other than as a rhetorical stick to hit countries that "illiberal" with. E.g. imprisonment of Julian Assange, removal of Trump from twitter, Atlantic Council as official part of FB content moderation team (w/ the probably-not-coincidental) subsequent removal of pro-Venezuela and far left groups. (Plus also IMO being banned from FB and Twitter are materially much more harmful to a political movement than being banned from an app store. EDIT: Maybe not, since per other comment it was being used to organize election results.)
    - avianlyric 5y ago
      Democratic leaders will care about it if it earns them votes at the polls. But I agree that the government's themselves don't give a rats arse about this stuff, as long as they can keep winning elections.
- heavyset_go 5y ago
  > With regards to CSAM, I think the same applies. After all the CSAM issue only exists because the US government has decided that invasive monitoring is the only way to counter CSAM. No it hasn't. There is no legislation that the government passed or enforces that says Apple must scan people's private data on their devices for CSAM. Apple decided to do that all on their own.
  - avianlyric 5y ago
    The specific approach isn't in law. But the requirement to scan photos stored in the cloud is. On this specific point I think reasonable to believe that Apple want to E2E iCloud photos, and their stated approach to CSAM is how they'll achieve E2E iCloud photos, while remaining compliant with the requirement to scan for CSAM they might be hosting. Now there's a very strong argument to be made that Apple have made an appalling trade-off here, prioritising E2E over not doing on device scanning. But it's a trade-off that's only happened due to the requirement for CSAM scanning. An interesting approach Apple could take, is apply E2E iCloud photos in Europe, and continue with on server scanning (and no E2E) for the US.
    - brendoelfrendo 5y ago
      > On this specific point I think reasonable to believe that Apple want to E2E iCloud photos Here's the thing: if they wanted this they should have said so, because until then I'm not going to make this assumption. I can only make decisions on information I have, not on wishful thinking.
    - ipv6ipv4 5y ago
      > But the requirement to scan photos stored in the cloud is. This is categorically false. The law is very clear. Known CSAM must be reported. There is no obligation to search for it. The law explicitly exempts service providers from having to search for anything in a paragraph aptly named “protection of privacy”. The text of the law: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2258A https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2258A
  - yawaworht1978 5y ago
- cageface 5y ago
  Of course Apple is going to play by the rules of the jurisdictions they want to sell their products in. That's why their reassurances that they would never bend to government pressure on their CSAM plans were so worthless.
Grustaf 5y ago
Perhaps they don't want people to use their devices for child abuse? Radical idea I know.
- sfifs 5y ago
  They can insist that if they are in the phone rental business and the ownership of the phone on their balance sheet, not if they're in the phone sales business. If you sell a product, it's pretty much illegal to control what people can and can't do with it. They can still control usage of iCloud which is a service they're renting out. Of course they don't care about CASM to switch their business model to do this legally... And their valuation will crash if their balance sheet expands so much and management would be fired.
  - Grustaf 5y ago
    Of course you can have terms of use for things you sell, I don't know why you would think otherwise. In this case it IS linked to iCloud though, as you probably know. Images are only scanned on their way to iCloud, and they won't be scanned if you don't use iCloud.
    - brendoelfrendo 5y ago
      I don't think anyone who is arguing against this capability, myself included, actually believes that it will only ever be used on photos destined for iCloud, especially if state authorities start pressuring Apple to start scanning everything.
      - Grustaf 5y ago
        That's because people don't understand how technology works. They think this is some kind of new system that gives Apple new access to things. It's not. They access they have here is nothing compared to what they have always had. They can and do scan all your messages and photos already, locally, for features such as photo classification and making reminders from emails. Apple could spy on anything they want, without this system. And this system is an incredibly impractical way to spy on people. It's also pretty obvious that they wouldn't tell us if they were planning to spy on us, they would just do it. In short: I have no idea if Apple spies on us, but I can say for certain that they will not use this system for it.
madeofpalk 5y ago
They say it is their responsibility, they don't want to be hosting and serving this content. They have mentioned it's their moral obligation, and they're just playing catch up to other providers. The story that keeps getting mentioned is that Facebook reports about 55k images a day, Google reports about 1500/day, whereas Apple was reporting 250 a year.
- wwtrv 5y ago
  You do understand that icloud is a private storage platform which is fundamentally different from Facebook/Instagram which are used for publicly sharing photos?
  - madeofpalk 5y ago
    Okay? I don't work for Apple, and I'm not making any judgement or sharing my opinion, just answering the question that was asked in a way that I hope was objectively factual with little editorialising. I will state though that Google Photos has in-servers CSAM detection, and Dropbox. You can have your own opinion about all of that.
PartiallyTyped 5y ago
Presumably to protect children. The cynic in me believes this was either or both of these: --- - Marketing ploy. The new iMessages app allows for scanning of the sent and received pictures for nudity and notifies parents if parental controls are enabled. This is supported by the very large order of iPhones apple made for this year, roughly 90 million iirc. - Bending the definition of E2EE, that is, enabling them to bend to governments "without breaking" their privacy "stance". Meaning that it is entirely possible to scan for content provided the government targets without losing E2EE. Effectively creating a special class of back window, where one can take a peek without the ability to execute arbitrary code. It should be noted that given that the model is fast and can run with minimal impact (thank god for accelerators on SOCs /s), it could in theory run in realtime as part of the display pipeline, further removing restrictions like requiring that the content is downloaded with the images and iCloud sync is enabled. --- But all of that is pure speculation from a random netizen.

Have they ever explained why the csam would be implemented? Apple bends just fine if the government is powerful enough and the marketplace is big enough, see China.

avianlyric 5y ago

In their defence (I say this with some trepidation), if they want to see their products in another country, then they need to play by that countries rules. Regardless of how we in the west feel about those rules. If a Chinese company came to the US or EU and ignored US or EU rules and lawful directives from government, we would quite rightly be up in arms about that. With regards to CSAM, I think the same applies. After all the CSAM issue only exists because the US government has decided that invasive monitoring is the only way to counter CSAM. I note that no other western country takes such an authoritarian approach to CSAM, an approach that seems to be primarily driving by evangelist Christian keen on outlawing sex in general. As oppose to actually helping victims of CSAM.

hypothesis 5y ago
Following laws in countries that one is operating is expected. However, following laws that contradict one’s marketing materials will lead to some understandable questions about those “values”.
- dilap 5y ago
  I think avianlyric is suggesting Apple didn't have a choice, and that US gov is compelling them to add the CSAM features. Which seems likely to me. † Really "CSAM", since there's no way to verify nor ensure it's only scanning for CSAM. What they are building is a prohibited content scanner, and what it will scan for is whatever governments would like it to scan for.
- avianlyric 5y ago
  Well do you have a copy of Apple's marketing material from Russia saying that won't censor the app store if compelled to do so by the Russian government? It not reasonable to hold Apple to pledges they've made to western customers, when talking about a service provided to non-western customers. As much as we wish it wasn't true, the scope for providing privacy is substantially greater in the west than it is elsewhere.
  - ByteWelder 5y ago
    > It not reasonable to hold Apple to pledges they've made to western customers, when talking about a service provided to non-western customers. I think it's reasonable: We hold people account across borders for serious violations (extraditions), so it's completely reasonable to hold a company accountable for its serious violations outside of the country that you're buying from. No-one is forcing Apple to support those countries with oppressing citizens either.
  - smoldesu 5y ago
    > Well do you have a copy of Apple's marketing material from Russia saying that won't censor the app store if compelled to do so by the Russian government? Создавая продукты Apple, мы прежде всего заботимся о том, чтобы защитить вашу личную информацию и предоставить вам контроль над ней. [0] Which translates to: When we create Apple products, our primary concern is to protect your data and give you control over it. [0] https://www.apple.com/ru/privacy/ https://www.apple.com/ru/privacy/
kwere 5y ago
everybody can use "i was only following orders" as defense in court
- avianlyric 5y ago
  Try "I was only following the law". I seriously doubt any court would punish you for sincerely trying to follow the law to the best of your ability. Russia is a sovereign nation, with the right to rule as they wish. If you're not happy with there way of life, then I would encourage you to contact your democratic representatives and tell them to either apply greater pressure to the Russian government to live up to our ideals, and follow our laws; and if that fails, declare war.
Mordisquitos 5y ago
> In their defence (I say this with some trepidation), if they want to see their products in another country, then they need to play by that countries rules. I understand your trepidation in saying it. That is simply a fact of reality as it stands and how businesses operate under the current incentives, not a value judgement. However, it makes me think that liberal democracies should play hardball. The USA already has the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act [0] and the UK the Bribery Act 2010 [1], which hold their own businesses and citizens criminally liable for business-related corruption in a foreign country. Also, many countries apply universal jurisdiction for crimes such as child abuse [2]. Maybe liberal democracies should start applying a similar set of rules to businesses who are licenced to operate within their country, forbidding them from performing certain types of tasks (e.g. ideological censorship) for any government. I am well aware of how incredibly complex a law of this kind would need to be, but let businesses choose – if they want to operate in the EU, USA, UK, etc. then they need to play by the no political repression rules worldwide. Would losing the markets of repressive regimes not be worth it? Well, they're free to move their headquarters to those countries and lose the liberal democratic market. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Corrupt_Practices_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Corrupt_Practices_Act [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bribery_Act_2010 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bribery_Act_2010 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_jurisdiction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_jurisdiction
- dilap 5y ago
  I don't think liberal democracies care about these freedoms, other than as a rhetorical stick to hit countries that "illiberal" with. E.g. imprisonment of Julian Assange, removal of Trump from twitter, Atlantic Council as official part of FB content moderation team (w/ the probably-not-coincidental) subsequent removal of pro-Venezuela and far left groups. (Plus also IMO being banned from FB and Twitter are materially much more harmful to a political movement than being banned from an app store. EDIT: Maybe not, since per other comment it was being used to organize election results.)
  - avianlyric 5y ago
    Democratic leaders will care about it if it earns them votes at the polls. But I agree that the government's themselves don't give a rats arse about this stuff, as long as they can keep winning elections.
heavyset_go 5y ago
> With regards to CSAM, I think the same applies. After all the CSAM issue only exists because the US government has decided that invasive monitoring is the only way to counter CSAM. No it hasn't. There is no legislation that the government passed or enforces that says Apple must scan people's private data on their devices for CSAM. Apple decided to do that all on their own.
- avianlyric 5y ago
  The specific approach isn't in law. But the requirement to scan photos stored in the cloud is. On this specific point I think reasonable to believe that Apple want to E2E iCloud photos, and their stated approach to CSAM is how they'll achieve E2E iCloud photos, while remaining compliant with the requirement to scan for CSAM they might be hosting. Now there's a very strong argument to be made that Apple have made an appalling trade-off here, prioritising E2E over not doing on device scanning. But it's a trade-off that's only happened due to the requirement for CSAM scanning. An interesting approach Apple could take, is apply E2E iCloud photos in Europe, and continue with on server scanning (and no E2E) for the US.
  - brendoelfrendo 5y ago
    > On this specific point I think reasonable to believe that Apple want to E2E iCloud photos Here's the thing: if they wanted this they should have said so, because until then I'm not going to make this assumption. I can only make decisions on information I have, not on wishful thinking.
  - ipv6ipv4 5y ago
    > But the requirement to scan photos stored in the cloud is. This is categorically false. The law is very clear. Known CSAM must be reported. There is no obligation to search for it. The law explicitly exempts service providers from having to search for anything in a paragraph aptly named “protection of privacy”. The text of the law: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2258A https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2258A
- yawaworht1978 5y ago
cageface 5y ago
Of course Apple is going to play by the rules of the jurisdictions they want to sell their products in. That's why their reassurances that they would never bend to government pressure on their CSAM plans were so worthless.

Grustaf 5y ago

Perhaps they don't want people to use their devices for child abuse? Radical idea I know.

sfifs 5y ago
They can insist that if they are in the phone rental business and the ownership of the phone on their balance sheet, not if they're in the phone sales business. If you sell a product, it's pretty much illegal to control what people can and can't do with it. They can still control usage of iCloud which is a service they're renting out. Of course they don't care about CASM to switch their business model to do this legally... And their valuation will crash if their balance sheet expands so much and management would be fired.
- Grustaf 5y ago
  Of course you can have terms of use for things you sell, I don't know why you would think otherwise. In this case it IS linked to iCloud though, as you probably know. Images are only scanned on their way to iCloud, and they won't be scanned if you don't use iCloud.
  - brendoelfrendo 5y ago
    I don't think anyone who is arguing against this capability, myself included, actually believes that it will only ever be used on photos destined for iCloud, especially if state authorities start pressuring Apple to start scanning everything.
    - Grustaf 5y ago
      That's because people don't understand how technology works. They think this is some kind of new system that gives Apple new access to things. It's not. They access they have here is nothing compared to what they have always had. They can and do scan all your messages and photos already, locally, for features such as photo classification and making reminders from emails. Apple could spy on anything they want, without this system. And this system is an incredibly impractical way to spy on people. It's also pretty obvious that they wouldn't tell us if they were planning to spy on us, they would just do it. In short: I have no idea if Apple spies on us, but I can say for certain that they will not use this system for it.

madeofpalk 5y ago

They say it is their responsibility, they don't want to be hosting and serving this content. They have mentioned it's their moral obligation, and they're just playing catch up to other providers. The story that keeps getting mentioned is that Facebook reports about 55k images a day, Google reports about 1500/day, whereas Apple was reporting 250 a year.

wwtrv 5y ago
You do understand that icloud is a private storage platform which is fundamentally different from Facebook/Instagram which are used for publicly sharing photos?
- madeofpalk 5y ago
  Okay? I don't work for Apple, and I'm not making any judgement or sharing my opinion, just answering the question that was asked in a way that I hope was objectively factual with little editorialising. I will state though that Google Photos has in-servers CSAM detection, and Dropbox. You can have your own opinion about all of that.

PartiallyTyped 5y ago

Presumably to protect children. The cynic in me believes this was either or both of these: --- - Marketing ploy. The new iMessages app allows for scanning of the sent and received pictures for nudity and notifies parents if parental controls are enabled. This is supported by the very large order of iPhones apple made for this year, roughly 90 million iirc. - Bending the definition of E2EE, that is, enabling them to bend to governments "without breaking" their privacy "stance". Meaning that it is entirely possible to scan for content provided the government targets without losing E2EE. Effectively creating a special class of back window, where one can take a peek without the ability to execute arbitrary code. It should be noted that given that the model is fast and can run with minimal impact (thank god for accelerators on SOCs /s), it could in theory run in realtime as part of the display pipeline, further removing restrictions like requiring that the content is downloaded with the images and iCloud sync is enabled. --- But all of that is pure speculation from a random netizen.