2 ms·

All I'm saying is that I understand why Apple doesn't want CSAM on their servers, while also reserving the ability to implement end to end encryption on photo g

All I'm saying is that I understand why Apple doesn't want CSAM on their servers, while also reserving the ability to implement end to end encryption on photo galleries in future. It's a tough line for them to walk. Personally I don't see any substantial moral difference to what Apple was planning versus what Google and Facebook already do, aside for the somewhat icky aspect that some initial CPU cycles are occurring on hardware I own. I'm equally concerned that a purported need to scan for CSAM could be used by legislators as a way to convince the population that the Government needs more encryption backdoors. Personally I'd rather have my photos inconsequentially hashed than have encryption legislatively broken.

joe_the_user 5y ago
All I'm saying is... Actually, you've made quite a few claims, including some that even ineffective surveillance is good 'cause it makes criminals worried. But anyway... that I understand why Apple doesn't want CSAM on their servers, while also reserving the ability to implement end to end encryption on photo galleries in future. Given you've admitted Apple's filtering is ineffective, you have admitted that criminals could put CSAM on Apple servers. But weird thing is "end-to-end encryption" is entirely useless if everyone is being surveilled before the start and after the end. Sure, Apple wants to be buzzword compliant with privacy and entirely surveil it's users in reality. I suppose I too can see how that would be appealing.
- simondotau 5y ago
  > Actually, you've made quite a few claims, The phrase "all I'm saying is" is an idiom, not a literal assertion. > Given you've admitted Apple's filtering is ineffective, you have admitted that criminals could put CSAM on Apple servers. Yes, I did. And I responded to that already. I'm not interested in engaging with "if it's not perfect then it's useless" type of arguments.

joe_the_user 5y ago

All I'm saying is... Actually, you've made quite a few claims, including some that even ineffective surveillance is good 'cause it makes criminals worried. But anyway... that I understand why Apple doesn't want CSAM on their servers, while also reserving the ability to implement end to end encryption on photo galleries in future. Given you've admitted Apple's filtering is ineffective, you have admitted that criminals could put CSAM on Apple servers. But weird thing is "end-to-end encryption" is entirely useless if everyone is being surveilled before the start and after the end. Sure, Apple wants to be buzzword compliant with privacy and entirely surveil it's users in reality. I suppose I too can see how that would be appealing.

simondotau 5y ago
> Actually, you've made quite a few claims, The phrase "all I'm saying is" is an idiom, not a literal assertion. > Given you've admitted Apple's filtering is ineffective, you have admitted that criminals could put CSAM on Apple servers. Yes, I did. And I responded to that already. I'm not interested in engaging with "if it's not perfect then it's useless" type of arguments.