25 ms·

Apple removes references to CSAM from its child safety webpage

390 points by virgildotcodes 5y ago

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
1cvmask 5y ago
Let’s give all your data to governments under the guise of protecting children or against terrorists. It is like the John Jonik cartoon. http://www.libertyclick.org/propaganda-for-government-control-of-internet/ http://www.libertyclick.org/propaganda-for-government-contro... http://jonikcartoons.blogspot.com/ http://jonikcartoons.blogspot.com/
- Veen 5y ago
  > Let’s give all your data to governments under the guise of protecting children But that's precisely what Apple's CSAM implementation doesn't do. It compares on-device image hashes with hashes of known CP images. It affords more privacy than other methods, which Apple is probably using anyway and which other cloud services are definitely using. https://www.apple.com/child-safety/pdf/CSAM_Detection_Technical_Summary.pdf https://www.apple.com/child-safety/pdf/CSAM_Detection_Techni...
  - 1cvmask 5y ago
    How about we expand the list of known CP images, under force, to include many non-CP images.
    - sweetheart 5y ago
      Then the myriad other tech companies that scan the images uploaded to their platforms will be alerted of supposed illicit images being uploaded. This isn't new. No one's lives have been ruined by this and it's been practice for years now.
      - zionic 5y ago
        >No one's lives have been ruined by this This is a strong claim with zero evidence. The social costs of defending an accused perpetrator of this nature are insanely high. While we're making unsubstantiated claims, I assert that intelligence agencies routinely exploit this. My only substantiation is that it's obvious and I would if I worked for them.
        sweetheart 5y ago
        We have literally no reason to think it's an issue. The burden of proof is on those who believe its a threat, not those who believe it isn't.
        zionic 5y ago
        "Burden of proof"? Seems like it's pretty hard to prove what intelligence agencies are doing. Also, there's the fun "you can't sue us because you have no standing/can't show harm, and showing harm to prove you have standing would be illegal".
        sweetheart 5y ago
        > "Burden of proof"? Yes, here you go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)
        yunesj 5y ago
        Ian Freemen is a controversial political activist whose pro-liberty, pro-bitcoin radio station was raided by the FBI in 2016 and had their equipment confiscated. It was widely covered in the news, he was kicked out of at least one community organization, and last I heard, they still didn't have all their equipment back. No charges were ever filed, and the media outlets didn't bother to update their articles. I think false accusations happen, especially to controversial figures, and assume most victims just don't want to call much attention to it.
    - Veen 5y ago
      The same is true of the technology that can find photos of cats on your device. It can be abused, but smartphones and cloud services are packed with technology that could be abused by a motivated bad actor. If you're worried about it, you're better off not using a smartphone at all.
    - Grustaf 5y ago
      Why would they want to entrap people with fake child porn images? What would even be the point of getting people flagged? They would never be convicted anyway, since they are not actually storing illegal images.
      - Syonyk 5y ago
        It doesn't matter. What matters is that the person is arrested, that their name is leaked to the mainstream news media, and that they're dragged through the mud - the same as seems to happen in literally every other child porn case. The actual guilt or innocence doesn't matter at that point. Their lives have been sufficiently ruined, and, if they are actually innocent, the message has been clearly sent.
        Grustaf 5y ago
        Do you have any examples of that happening, innocent people getting arrested for child porn? Never heard of it. In any case, the police will not arrest anyone because they have only been flagged by the automatic system. As soon as Apple reviews the images that triggered the flagging, they will see that they aren't actually child porn, and hence they won't even contact the police.
        yunesj 5y ago
        I recently described an example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29567729 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29567729
        Grustaf 5y ago
        Seems they went after him for other things https://nymag.com/intelligencer/amp/2021/08/bitcoin-ian-freeman-fbi-doj.html https://nymag.com/intelligencer/amp/2021/08/bitcoin-ian-free...
    - kingcharles 5y ago
      As I stated in a reply above, I guarantee that this database contains a number of non-real-CP images already that are just CG.
  - zionic 5y ago
    >It compares on-device image hashes with hashes of known CP images. No, it compares against hashes supplied by a government agency (NCMEC). Apple has no way to verify the hashes are in fact CP, as it is only re-hashing hashes.
    - treis 5y ago
      There was a manual review step if the hashes triggered.
    - treesknees 5y ago
      But once it reaches some non-defined threshold, it's Apple who reviews the content not the government. They don't have a way to verify the hashes, but they would have a way to verify the content which matches the hashes. Presumably at this stage is where malicious hashes would be detected and removed from the database.
      - junon 5y ago
        > Presumably at this stage is where malicious hashes would be detected and removed from the database. How, if 1) the original content is never provided to Apple, and 2) the offending content on consumer devices is never uploaded to Apple?
        kemayo 5y ago
        You're misunderstanding the proposed system. The entire system as-described only runs on content that's in the process of being uploaded to Apple -- it's part of the iCloud Photos upload system. Apple stores all this content encrypted on their servers, but it's not E2E so they have a key. This entire system was a way for Apple to avoid decrypting your photos on their servers and scanning them there. Hypothetically, if Apple implemented this system and switched to E2E for the photo storage, you'd be more private overall because Apple would be incapable of seeing anything about your photos until you tripped these hash matches, as opposed to the status quo where they can look at any of your photos whenever they feel like it. (And the hash matches only include a "visual derivative" which we assume means a low res thumbnail.) I say hypothetically because Apple never said this was their plan. You can argue about whether or not Apple should be doing this. But it does seem to be fairly standard in the cloud file storage industry.
  - elliekelly 5y ago
    Why do you not consider hashes of my photos to be my data?
    - Veen 5y ago
      That's an interesting question. I have no idea who "owns" hashes. Does the copyright on a photo transfer to hashes of the photo? Is a hash a derivative work? Regardless, I am sure that somewhere in the terms and conditions you give Apple the right to copy, move, and process your photos and probably hashes of them too.
roenxi 5y ago
If Apple kills the program they deserve some positive attention, but realistically the governments of the world will want this capability to scan people's data for things and will get it developed one way or the other. It has gotten so cheap to run dragnets that the only rational responses are pessimism or demand for privacy by design.
- threeseed 5y ago
  > but realistically the governments of the world will want this capability to scan people's data for things and will get it developed one way or the other Sorry to burst your bubble. But all of the photo/cloud providers including Apple have been doing CSAM scanning for many years. And will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. Apple actually tried to give users more privacy.
  - roenxi 5y ago
    The US government, and probably others, scan through everything on the internet. That has been a generally accepted matter of fact since around 2015. I doubt there are any secrets on iCloud. I don't like it, but I'm still going to complain glumly if things get worse. And at least I don't own the servers involved.
zibzab 5y ago
Apple is extremely sensitive to bad PR, this should not surprise anyone.
- fsflover 5y ago
  It worked very well with the iCloud encryption (not): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25777207 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25777207.
ItsBob 5y ago
Problem with something like this is the cat's out of the bag. The code has been written, tested and merged etc. The project has reached a point where it's ready to ship. Apple have done their homework and they will not release ANYTHING unless they think they'll either make money from it or at the very least, not LOSE money from it. It's all about money, nothing else. It's coming whether we like it or not now :( And you can be sure that others will follow. It will be in Android at some point and possibly Windows and MacOS too. I try not to be negative and cynical these days but the tech oligarchs make that incredibly difficult.
- quitit 5y ago
  The "scanning" feature that underpins this has been deployed for years, and I dare say wouldn't even be considered unique for photo library managers. If you can search for "cat" and get photos of cats, then your photo library already has the tools necessary for CSAM detection. I feel the fears about this implementation are largely overblown - equivalent features are not being misused on Google and Meta/Facebook's properties, despite having a much larger audience and less procedural oversight. Rather Apple is the outlier here for being not just late, but also by having minimum thresholds that must be passed and an unskippable step of human review. I'm yet to hear a coherent argument about the potential dangers of the system that understood the implementation, nor the state of image scanning amongst cloud providers - even this thread seems to believe that Apple is the first here. Apple's approach was the most conservative, Google's goes much farther: https://support.google.com/transparencyreport/answer/10330933?hl=en#zippy=%2Chow-does-google-identify-csam-on-its-platform https://support.google.com/transparencyreport/answer/1033093...
  - ItsBob 5y ago
    > The "scanning" feature that underpins this has been deployed for years Yes, I agree that your phone has the ability to find stuff like this based on ML etc. However, if their algorithm finds something that matches a hash of child porn, you'll be reported (after notification or something, can't remember). Can you imagine what that would do to people? The risk of fucking this up and destroying someone's life is far too high. It's a stigma that will never go away even if it's proven false. And what if the government decides that they want to ruin a political adversary? The technology is there to report them, rightly or wrongly, for child porn on their phone and ruin them. Again, proving that it was false will not be enough if it leaked out in the first place. In my opinion, it's my phone (yes, yes, I know they all dial home to the mothership, I only lease it etc.) and I should have complete say over it and this is one more step away from that goal. It's on the dystopian highway imo.
nbzso 5y ago
I don't care. I already switched my business to Linux Boxes. The last Mac OS in use is Catalina. All of my critical software runs under Linux. Figma is in the browser. Affinity Designer is running perfectly under Isolated Windows VM. If I ever use Apple computer again it will be with Linux. After 20+ years of using Apple computers I don't find them interesting enough to risk my data and be scanned, categorized and processed by third party criteria. Think different. Use Linux.
- donohoe 5y ago
  And your phone is what? If it’s an Android it’s probable got something similar in place. On an iPhone all you must to use disable iCloud sync to avoid CSAM
  - bubblethink 5y ago
    This is such a silly strawman. First, it is not related to the parent's point at all. Second, it is perfectly possible to run AOSP based OSes not tied to google.
    - donohoe 5y ago
      I disagree. >> First, it is not related to the parent's point at all The post was about switching away computers. My (badly implied) point was, a lot of the effort is wasted unless if you still use an Apple iPhone... If you skip using an iPhone, then fine, but the other options out there are likely worse. >> Second, it is perfectly possible to run AOSP based OSes not tied to google You can build your own Google-free etc version but again most people won't because of the effort and the need to redo for updates again and again. The Parent post author probably has the means to do it, but it's another endless task they have to stay on. All other options (to my limited knowledge - plz share if you know more) mean compromises in apps, and functionality - unless you're happy to spend hours each wee/month troubleshooting and setting up workaround and working with specific compatible hardware. It can be done. But how much of your life will you want to spend on that? Reading other comments maybe it is a solved problem now - it hadn't been last time I tried. If I assumed too much from the parent post then sorry.
threeseed 5y ago
Just so everyone is clear here: a) CSAM scanning only ever applied to photos being uploaded via iCloud Photo Library. It was never applied to photos that you weren't giving to Apple nor any other files. b) The "but they could expand it to anything else" logic is baseless and frankly stupid. Why ? Because they wrote the operating system. They could implement this feature in any of the 100+ daemons that are currently running as root and no one would ever know. c) It was a better solution for user privacy than what exists today i.e. Apple secretly scans your photo server-side. Which you gave them permission to when you agreed to the EULA for iCloud.
- lozenge 5y ago
  So what happens when China sends Apple some signatures of anti-Party memes? "Sorry, you can't view the actual photos to verify they are of abused children, that's illegal".
- Karunamon 5y ago
  >CSAM scanning only ever applied to photos being uploaded via iCloud Photo Library Which is everything in your camera roll, and last I checked, you can't pick and choose which pics. Additionally, saving a photo from the internet, or in some apps, merely receiving one (WhatsApp does this, at least), automatically puts it there. So let's amend A to reflect reality: a) CSAM scanning is applied to all photos an average iOS user will interact with if they have iCloud Photos turned on, which is the default which boils down to: a) CSAM scanning is applied to all photos an average iOS user will interact with
null_object 5y ago
So far all the comments are predictably negative and imply that Apple will at some time in the future attempt to covertly implement the feature in secret. Another take would be that they took on-board the extensive public criticism, and changed their minds.
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  I would have thought they continue the practice but because of the bad publicity will remove all mentions of it. Is it confirmed they won't scan user files? Because I would assume that they still do. As for the negativity. That is based on experience with large tech companies.
- gentleman11 5y ago
  Somebody above found a quote saying that plans are still to go forward with it eventually
- BrazzVuvuzela 5y ago
  If Apple would like us to believe they changed their mind, they might consider telling us they changed their mind. They haven't told us that, so why should we assume it?
  - judge2020 5y ago
    They’re still a company with a PR and Legal team. Letting it die quietly means it stays out of the news cycle (as in, there are less articles about it being removed compared to if they publicly announced they were wrong).
    - BrazzVuvuzela 5y ago
      > They’re still a company a PR and Legal team All the more reason to not give them the benefit of the doubt with shit like this. If they say something flat out, that has some weight since there could be legal repercussions for lying (in theory anyway.) But not saying anything and letting people infer whatever they want? That's how companies with PR and Legal teams like to cover their asses instead of outright lying. The company says nothing and lets their supporters invent whatever headcanon is most flattering. I don't go in for that. Edit: The same thing happened when they let Apple fans infer that this feature was preparation for enabling proper E2EE. As far as I'm aware Apple never actually said that and their supporters decided to believe it without evidence, just a lot of wishful thinking.
itronitron 5y ago
>> Apple Removes All References to... First rule of scanning feature is don't talk about scanning feature.
- drexlspivey 5y ago
  Apple Removes All References to [undefined]
bangonkeyboard 5y ago
Absent an on-record commitment that this surveillance has been abandoned, I don't put it past Apple to deploy it silently in a minor point-update and then reveal it later, similar to how they secretly converted iOS end-users' filesystems to APFS in versions prior to its official release. They could then point to nobody noticing the deployment as purported evidence that privacy concerns were overblown.
matthewdgreen 5y ago
My prediction is that client-side CSAM scanning is indeed dead, but Apple will make the “easy” decision to perform server-side scanning. The problem is that this decision will lock them out of offering an (increasingly standard) E2EE backup capability. I don’t know that the Apple execs have grappled with the implications of this, long term. But at least it’s an improvement.
- giansegato 5y ago
  They've been already doing server side CSAM, for a while, on iCloud pics. Their issue was targeting all media that wasn't uploaded.
  - snowwrestler 5y ago
    The system they proposed would only have scanned images in the process of being uploaded—so, the opposite of your 2nd sentence. There was some reporting that Apple does server-side CSAM scanning, but based on the volume of matches they report, it must be extremely limited. Apple never said it this way, but many people assumed that Apple designed this client-side scanning system so that they could then encrypt iCloud data with client-side keys, which would provide end to end encryption for customer backups… and prevent any server-side scanning. This is likely what Matthew is referring to.
    - zerkten 5y ago
      From a read of the expert opinions on the CSAM topic when this blew up. From that, it seemed like you had to be all in, or keeping out of active CSAM scanning/monitoring for legal reasons. They noted the match volume and came to the same conclusion. With the attention I don't see how Apple can delay taking some action here. A new external liability that can be attacked in different ways. Either they need to level up the CSAM scanning server-side to increase compliance, or they need to reimplement the client-side approach. The latter approach is probably much better from their perspective for various reasons. Ultimately, they might have been better giving this a lower profile overall and effectively have sought public attention of law enforcement to provide some cover. The authorities are going to get this in some fashion eventually.
mrtksn 5y ago
I strongly believe that this feature could have broken Apple’s brand irreparably. %99.9 of us are not pedophiles but personal devices that snitch you to the police(with extra steps) is something that most people will not accept. The proposed database for snitching was CSAM but once the system there, the devices become the pocket police that can receive any kind of scan-match-snitch instructions. This would be the point where humanity embraces total control. That said, an offline version might be workable. Think 2E2 encrypted devices that can be scanned against a database with physical access to the device upon approval from the device owner. Imagine a person being investigated through standard police work, it can be used to prove the existence or the lack of the existence of the materials without exposing unrelated and private information if the person accepts to cooperate.
- BrazzVuvuzela 5y ago
  > are more Typo of abhor?
  - mrtksn 5y ago
    Yep, thanks
endisneigh 5y ago
I never understood the big deal about this. If you use most cloud file synching services you are already being scanned, and if you don't, this (CSAM) thing wouldn't have affected you anyway. The main rebuttal is that people claimed that Apple could expand the scanning to photos you aren't sending to iCloud. If you believe that though, then not using Apple devices (regardless of whether they implement CSAM or not) is clearly the move. tldr: if you trust apple, this doesn't matter, and if you don't, you shouldn't use apple devices anyway.
- fsflover 5y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29564794 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29564794
- mikehall314 5y ago
  Many people were upset or annoyed at the idea of their own device spying on them. I can understand that. However, the major issue for me is the database of "forbidden" neural hashes which you are not permitted to have on your phone. Who controls what goes into that database? Right now, it's only CSAM and Apple have said they pinky-swear that if they're told to add other things they will refuse. Any maybe they will. Maybe Tim Cook will fight tooth-and-nail to avoid adding non-CSAM hashes to that list. But then maybe Tim retires in five years time and his replacement doesn't have the appetite for that fight. Or maybe Apple gets court order saying "you MUST also report this sort of content too". Maybe that list of forbidden hashes now includes political imagery, the picture from Tiananmen Square, known anti-government memes, etc. Once the technology is created and deployed, the only thing preventing that sort of over-reach is Apple's resolve against governmental pressure; even if you'd trust Tim Cook with your life, I can completely see why that would give people pause.
  - endisneigh 5y ago
    > However, the major issue for me is the database of "forbidden" neural hashes which you are not permitted to have on your phone. Who controls what goes into that database? Right now, it's only CSAM and Apple have said they pinky-swear that if they're told to add other things they will refuse. This isn't what was being proposed. What was being proposed was that if you had a photo that resolved to a "forbidden" hash, upon being uploaded to iCloud data would be sent to Apple. Presumably after some arbitrary amount of times this happens, information would then be sent to the local government. If you were not using iCloud to store photos then it wouldn't matter either way (according to Apple).
yelskcol 5y ago
Seems bizarre that this is what people take issue with and yet they're happy otherwise to hand over their data to FAANG companies. If you're concerned about privacy / data misuse you shouldn't be using these services at all and you should have been pointing out the issues years ago.
- fsflover 5y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27897975 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27897975
- authed 5y ago
  Data stored in the cloud should be considered public (at this time), but not the data on your device.
balozi 5y ago
> Apple has quietly nixed all mentions of CSAM from its Child Safety webpage, suggesting its controversial plan to detect child sexual abuse images on iPhones and iPads may hang in the balance following significant criticism of its methods. OR more likely suggests that Apple prefers to continue its program in secret.
sixhobbits 5y ago
@dang suggested title update as the important bit is cut off Apple Removes References to CSAM Scanning from Child Safety Webpage
xunn0026 5y ago
Reminder that Internet Archive has a 2-to-1 Matching Gift campaign for donations: https://archive.org/donate https://archive.org/donate It's quite important to see what a given page wrote.
amelius 5y ago
> Apple Removes All References to Controversial CSAM Scanning Feature from Its... I was hoping to read "Source Code" next.
Traubenfuchs 5y ago
I still don't understand what's the goal here? It certainly isn't about catching child abuse. Any non completely stupid predator will have switched to Android already. Who is paying Apple to develop this feature that has zero (or negative!) value to the end user? Is it governments that want to scan end user devices for content declared forbidden by them?
LatteLazy 5y ago
I don't get why they ever green lit this "feature". It's unpopular with at least some users, it flies in the face of their big push for privacy and it increases their liability. Who approves such a request!?
LinuxBender 5y ago
Is Apple's CSAM scanning operationally different than Windows 10 SmartScreen [1]? [1] - https://www.windowscentral.com/how-disable-smartscreen-trusted-app-windows-10 https://www.windowscentral.com/how-disable-smartscreen-trust...
- kevinmgranger 5y ago
  Yes. One is application binaries, the other is photos.
  - LinuxBender 5y ago
    Has anyone verified that it only scans binaries?
    - kf6nux 5y ago
      Probably. It's not just about 1 in 8 billion people having taken the time to look, it's also about 1 in (what I'm guessing is) at least 100 people at Microsoft not leaking it. Apple had a leak before it was even released. Secrets are hard to keep.
theHIDninja 5y ago
noisy_boy 5y ago
People like us who do not want this kind of intrusion have other things to do and lives to live. People driving such initiatives do such things to make their living. They will keep pushing for it and eventually we will be too busy/forgetful/tired to stop it. Unfortunately these issues are never prominent points in the political discussion and get sidelined either by vested interests or people's ignorance/lack of information or combination of such factors. I wish I had the optimism to see hope in these matters.
BiteCode_dev 5y ago
It's removed from marketing material, but is it removed from the code? Since the OS is proprietary, how do we know they didn't go for it anyway?
- grishka 5y ago
  > Since the OS is proprietary, how do we know they didn't go for it anyway? Reverse engineering is a thing.
  - aembleton 5y ago
    Have you reverse engineered iOS?
    - grishka 5y ago
      I haven't reverse engineered iOS itself because I've never had any reasons to, but I have reverse engineered third-party iOS apps (dumped from a jailbroken device) and some parts of macOS.
    - judge2020 5y ago
      Well, someone did: https://9to5mac.com/2021/08/18/apples-csam-detection-reverse-engineered/ https://9to5mac.com/2021/08/18/apples-csam-detection-reverse...
  - nicce 5y ago
    Good luck on not being more than half year behind the latest release, with decent accuracy. That really takes some effort.
  - BiteCode_dev 5y ago
    An expensive, hard, long and unreliable thing.
- jeromegv 5y ago
  How do you know it’s not on android?
jetsetgo 5y ago
The feature is already implemented. Now just in secret. Pumping all user data straight to FBI
kumarsw 5y ago
This case reminds me a bit of the big stink with the Daraprim price hikes and Martin Shkreli being dumb enough to be the public face of it. That worked out pretty bad for him but also bad for everyone else, because now we had a guy to blame for it, instead of asking the harder questions like "why aren't drug prices regulated?" Utilities must go to the public utility commission to raise rates so why is the same not done for drugs? The federal government stockpiles oil in case of shortages, why is it not responsible for ensuring that drug production is continued? The maddening thing about the Apple CSAM scanning controversy is that I still have no idea which legislation Apple is complying with, and it's difficult to find out any reporting on that aspect. US? UK? EU? Clearly there is/are some government organization(s) with teeth long enough that Apple is not willing to go to court again as was the case with the San Bernandino shooter. Point is, whether or not Apple has been dishonest about this whole thing, they are still just a distraction.
- syshum 5y ago
  >> Utilities must go to the public utility commission to raise rates Which I have never seen a denial of so I am not sure that is much of a check
- treis 5y ago
  There's a grand bargain where tech companies are granted immunity from user generated content in exchange for moderating that content. Apple's move is to try and maintain that bargain while moving to E2E encryption.
  - Syonyk 5y ago
    > Apple's move is to try and maintain that bargain while moving to E2E encryption. It could be. It makes sense as a precursor to it. However, unless I've missed something, at no point in the entire debacle did Apple say "Yes, we're going to be moving iCloud to E2EE, and this allows us to do it. If you opt into this, the gains are that you can enable full encryption for everything else, and we literally can't see it on the servers." Apple, to the best of my knowledge, never said that, nor even implied it. It was, "We're adding this to what we can do now, take it."
throwawaymanbot 5y ago
Removing all reference does not mean their surveillance infra is off your phone.
whatever1 5y ago
If it is already implemented how would we even know. I believe that since iOS is doing ML scanning locally anyway, it is doing hash checks too.
ksec 5y ago
I am glad, that finally, a healthy dose of skepticism are applied to Apple. Finally. Even on site like Macrumors.com.
citizenpaul 5y ago
It's incredibly disturbing to me how little much of the HN crowd seems to understand how these systems like CSAM actually work. I'm not talking about the tech or programming. This is a fast track tool to putting anyone in jail for the most despised crime a person can commit. The tool has no oversight, no transparency, no counter, no clear your name, no real usage definitions other than relentless spying on the "protect the children" fallacy. Most people don't understand how life destroying a false accusation is once the government paperwork is started. At that point like it or not you are basically considered guilty by all the agents of the governement by default. Their jobs are to prosecute not eliminate false positives. Once you have been on their radar your life will never ever be the same. And since it is CP related you will not even get helpful people willing to touch it with a 10ft pole cause of fear they may be implicated. CSAM is a dastardly and effective way to establish a totalitarian rule by fear of life in jail, nothing more.
- junon 5y ago
  > It's incredibly disturbing to me how little much of the HN crowd seems to understand how these systems like CSAM actually work. Dunno. I remember most people on HN were absolutely pissed this was even being considered. My takeaway is that most people here understand it to a large enough degree that they don't like it.
- _fat_santa 5y ago
  Stuff like this gives me pause in the tech industry. My brother is in med-school and always joke with him that the worst thing I can at work is take a website down and the worst thing he can do is kill someone. But with tech like this, you can literally kill someone with it. Sure you're not actually "killing" anyone, but the decisions these systems make can drive someone to end their life, whether or not the accusations by the machine are true. I wouldn't want to be the guy building that software.
  - commandlinefan 5y ago
    > can drive someone to end their life Don't underestimate the possibility of somebody else ending their lives for them in a fit of righteous rage.
nunez 5y ago
I am impressed and scared about how quickly media coverage and "public outrage" scaled down after the first few weeks this feature was announced. While I agree with the technology and its mission, I'm glad that Apple walked it back while they try to improve its messaging and privacy.
kf6nux 5y ago
The page also no longer references the iMessage forced snitching on children. Was that covered in another news story?
kingcharles 5y ago
Does anyone know if the law enforcement file signature databases use SHA or MD5? My guess is that they are all MD5 signatures. So - my question is - can I get a file onto someone's device that will match a CSA image, but is actually not at all CSA? (i.e. basically a more serious "SWAT" attack because it ends with the person potentially spending years in jail and their life ruined)
tester89 5y ago
> *Update*: Apple spokesperson Shane Bauer told The Verge that though the CSAM detection feature is no longer mentioned on its website, plans for CSAM detection have not changed since September, which means CSAM detection is still coming in the future.
- irq-1 5y ago
  https://www.theverge.com/2021/12/15/22837631/apple-csam-detection-child-safety-feature-webpage-removal-delay https://www.theverge.com/2021/12/15/22837631/apple-csam-dete...
- matheusmoreira 5y ago
  So it's just damage control.
readonthegoapp 5y ago
I presume Apple is going to come out and announce tomorrow or so that they have decided to rejoin QAnon in persuing the sexual exploitation of children? They were _very_ committed to their story -- that this tech was not primarily or just about spying on everyone for the NSA and other agencies and governments -- so it's not really credible that they just changed their minds. Maybe just decided to stop marketing it until they can drum up some fake news to support crushing dissdance with this tech.
somuchlan 5y ago
What I do not understand is why there is not more press on this.. They literally did not budge and shipped the product as presented from months prior, yet, no coverage

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

Let’s give all your data to governments under the guise of protecting children or against terrorists. It is like the John Jonik cartoon. http://www.libertyclick.org/propaganda-for-government-control-of-internet/ http://www.libertyclick.org/propaganda-for-government-contro... http://jonikcartoons.blogspot.com/ http://jonikcartoons.blogspot.com/

Veen 5y ago
> Let’s give all your data to governments under the guise of protecting children But that's precisely what Apple's CSAM implementation doesn't do. It compares on-device image hashes with hashes of known CP images. It affords more privacy than other methods, which Apple is probably using anyway and which other cloud services are definitely using. https://www.apple.com/child-safety/pdf/CSAM_Detection_Technical_Summary.pdf https://www.apple.com/child-safety/pdf/CSAM_Detection_Techni...
- 1cvmask 5y ago
  How about we expand the list of known CP images, under force, to include many non-CP images.
  - sweetheart 5y ago
    Then the myriad other tech companies that scan the images uploaded to their platforms will be alerted of supposed illicit images being uploaded. This isn't new. No one's lives have been ruined by this and it's been practice for years now.
    - zionic 5y ago
      >No one's lives have been ruined by this This is a strong claim with zero evidence. The social costs of defending an accused perpetrator of this nature are insanely high. While we're making unsubstantiated claims, I assert that intelligence agencies routinely exploit this. My only substantiation is that it's obvious and I would if I worked for them.
      - sweetheart 5y ago
        We have literally no reason to think it's an issue. The burden of proof is on those who believe its a threat, not those who believe it isn't.
        zionic 5y ago
        "Burden of proof"? Seems like it's pretty hard to prove what intelligence agencies are doing. Also, there's the fun "you can't sue us because you have no standing/can't show harm, and showing harm to prove you have standing would be illegal".
        sweetheart 5y ago
        > "Burden of proof"? Yes, here you go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)
      - yunesj 5y ago
        Ian Freemen is a controversial political activist whose pro-liberty, pro-bitcoin radio station was raided by the FBI in 2016 and had their equipment confiscated. It was widely covered in the news, he was kicked out of at least one community organization, and last I heard, they still didn't have all their equipment back. No charges were ever filed, and the media outlets didn't bother to update their articles. I think false accusations happen, especially to controversial figures, and assume most victims just don't want to call much attention to it.
  - Veen 5y ago
    The same is true of the technology that can find photos of cats on your device. It can be abused, but smartphones and cloud services are packed with technology that could be abused by a motivated bad actor. If you're worried about it, you're better off not using a smartphone at all.
  - Grustaf 5y ago
    Why would they want to entrap people with fake child porn images? What would even be the point of getting people flagged? They would never be convicted anyway, since they are not actually storing illegal images.
    - Syonyk 5y ago
      It doesn't matter. What matters is that the person is arrested, that their name is leaked to the mainstream news media, and that they're dragged through the mud - the same as seems to happen in literally every other child porn case. The actual guilt or innocence doesn't matter at that point. Their lives have been sufficiently ruined, and, if they are actually innocent, the message has been clearly sent.
      - Grustaf 5y ago
        Do you have any examples of that happening, innocent people getting arrested for child porn? Never heard of it. In any case, the police will not arrest anyone because they have only been flagged by the automatic system. As soon as Apple reviews the images that triggered the flagging, they will see that they aren't actually child porn, and hence they won't even contact the police.
        yunesj 5y ago
        I recently described an example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29567729 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29567729
        Grustaf 5y ago
        Seems they went after him for other things https://nymag.com/intelligencer/amp/2021/08/bitcoin-ian-freeman-fbi-doj.html https://nymag.com/intelligencer/amp/2021/08/bitcoin-ian-free...
  - kingcharles 5y ago
    As I stated in a reply above, I guarantee that this database contains a number of non-real-CP images already that are just CG.
- zionic 5y ago
  >It compares on-device image hashes with hashes of known CP images. No, it compares against hashes supplied by a government agency (NCMEC). Apple has no way to verify the hashes are in fact CP, as it is only re-hashing hashes.
  - treis 5y ago
    There was a manual review step if the hashes triggered.
  - treesknees 5y ago
    But once it reaches some non-defined threshold, it's Apple who reviews the content not the government. They don't have a way to verify the hashes, but they would have a way to verify the content which matches the hashes. Presumably at this stage is where malicious hashes would be detected and removed from the database.
    - junon 5y ago
      > Presumably at this stage is where malicious hashes would be detected and removed from the database. How, if 1) the original content is never provided to Apple, and 2) the offending content on consumer devices is never uploaded to Apple?
      - kemayo 5y ago
        You're misunderstanding the proposed system. The entire system as-described only runs on content that's in the process of being uploaded to Apple -- it's part of the iCloud Photos upload system. Apple stores all this content encrypted on their servers, but it's not E2E so they have a key. This entire system was a way for Apple to avoid decrypting your photos on their servers and scanning them there. Hypothetically, if Apple implemented this system and switched to E2E for the photo storage, you'd be more private overall because Apple would be incapable of seeing anything about your photos until you tripped these hash matches, as opposed to the status quo where they can look at any of your photos whenever they feel like it. (And the hash matches only include a "visual derivative" which we assume means a low res thumbnail.) I say hypothetically because Apple never said this was their plan. You can argue about whether or not Apple should be doing this. But it does seem to be fairly standard in the cloud file storage industry.
- elliekelly 5y ago
  Why do you not consider hashes of my photos to be my data?
  - Veen 5y ago
    That's an interesting question. I have no idea who "owns" hashes. Does the copyright on a photo transfer to hashes of the photo? Is a hash a derivative work? Regardless, I am sure that somewhere in the terms and conditions you give Apple the right to copy, move, and process your photos and probably hashes of them too.

roenxi 5y ago

If Apple kills the program they deserve some positive attention, but realistically the governments of the world will want this capability to scan people's data for things and will get it developed one way or the other. It has gotten so cheap to run dragnets that the only rational responses are pessimism or demand for privacy by design.

threeseed 5y ago
> but realistically the governments of the world will want this capability to scan people's data for things and will get it developed one way or the other Sorry to burst your bubble. But all of the photo/cloud providers including Apple have been doing CSAM scanning for many years. And will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. Apple actually tried to give users more privacy.
- roenxi 5y ago
  The US government, and probably others, scan through everything on the internet. That has been a generally accepted matter of fact since around 2015. I doubt there are any secrets on iCloud. I don't like it, but I'm still going to complain glumly if things get worse. And at least I don't own the servers involved.

zibzab 5y ago

Apple is extremely sensitive to bad PR, this should not surprise anyone.

fsflover 5y ago
It worked very well with the iCloud encryption (not): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25777207 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25777207.

ItsBob 5y ago

Problem with something like this is the cat's out of the bag. The code has been written, tested and merged etc. The project has reached a point where it's ready to ship. Apple have done their homework and they will not release ANYTHING unless they think they'll either make money from it or at the very least, not LOSE money from it. It's all about money, nothing else. It's coming whether we like it or not now :( And you can be sure that others will follow. It will be in Android at some point and possibly Windows and MacOS too. I try not to be negative and cynical these days but the tech oligarchs make that incredibly difficult.

quitit 5y ago
The "scanning" feature that underpins this has been deployed for years, and I dare say wouldn't even be considered unique for photo library managers. If you can search for "cat" and get photos of cats, then your photo library already has the tools necessary for CSAM detection. I feel the fears about this implementation are largely overblown - equivalent features are not being misused on Google and Meta/Facebook's properties, despite having a much larger audience and less procedural oversight. Rather Apple is the outlier here for being not just late, but also by having minimum thresholds that must be passed and an unskippable step of human review. I'm yet to hear a coherent argument about the potential dangers of the system that understood the implementation, nor the state of image scanning amongst cloud providers - even this thread seems to believe that Apple is the first here. Apple's approach was the most conservative, Google's goes much farther: https://support.google.com/transparencyreport/answer/10330933?hl=en#zippy=%2Chow-does-google-identify-csam-on-its-platform https://support.google.com/transparencyreport/answer/1033093...
- ItsBob 5y ago
  > The "scanning" feature that underpins this has been deployed for years Yes, I agree that your phone has the ability to find stuff like this based on ML etc. However, if their algorithm finds something that matches a hash of child porn, you'll be reported (after notification or something, can't remember). Can you imagine what that would do to people? The risk of fucking this up and destroying someone's life is far too high. It's a stigma that will never go away even if it's proven false. And what if the government decides that they want to ruin a political adversary? The technology is there to report them, rightly or wrongly, for child porn on their phone and ruin them. Again, proving that it was false will not be enough if it leaked out in the first place. In my opinion, it's my phone (yes, yes, I know they all dial home to the mothership, I only lease it etc.) and I should have complete say over it and this is one more step away from that goal. It's on the dystopian highway imo.

nbzso 5y ago

I don't care. I already switched my business to Linux Boxes. The last Mac OS in use is Catalina. All of my critical software runs under Linux. Figma is in the browser. Affinity Designer is running perfectly under Isolated Windows VM. If I ever use Apple computer again it will be with Linux. After 20+ years of using Apple computers I don't find them interesting enough to risk my data and be scanned, categorized and processed by third party criteria. Think different. Use Linux.

donohoe 5y ago
And your phone is what? If it’s an Android it’s probable got something similar in place. On an iPhone all you must to use disable iCloud sync to avoid CSAM
- bubblethink 5y ago
  This is such a silly strawman. First, it is not related to the parent's point at all. Second, it is perfectly possible to run AOSP based OSes not tied to google.
  - donohoe 5y ago
    I disagree. >> First, it is not related to the parent's point at all The post was about switching away computers. My (badly implied) point was, a lot of the effort is wasted unless if you still use an Apple iPhone... If you skip using an iPhone, then fine, but the other options out there are likely worse. >> Second, it is perfectly possible to run AOSP based OSes not tied to google You can build your own Google-free etc version but again most people won't because of the effort and the need to redo for updates again and again. The Parent post author probably has the means to do it, but it's another endless task they have to stay on. All other options (to my limited knowledge - plz share if you know more) mean compromises in apps, and functionality - unless you're happy to spend hours each wee/month troubleshooting and setting up workaround and working with specific compatible hardware. It can be done. But how much of your life will you want to spend on that? Reading other comments maybe it is a solved problem now - it hadn't been last time I tried. If I assumed too much from the parent post then sorry.

threeseed 5y ago

Just so everyone is clear here: a) CSAM scanning only ever applied to photos being uploaded via iCloud Photo Library. It was never applied to photos that you weren't giving to Apple nor any other files. b) The "but they could expand it to anything else" logic is baseless and frankly stupid. Why ? Because they wrote the operating system. They could implement this feature in any of the 100+ daemons that are currently running as root and no one would ever know. c) It was a better solution for user privacy than what exists today i.e. Apple secretly scans your photo server-side. Which you gave them permission to when you agreed to the EULA for iCloud.

lozenge 5y ago
So what happens when China sends Apple some signatures of anti-Party memes? "Sorry, you can't view the actual photos to verify they are of abused children, that's illegal".
Karunamon 5y ago
>CSAM scanning only ever applied to photos being uploaded via iCloud Photo Library Which is everything in your camera roll, and last I checked, you can't pick and choose which pics. Additionally, saving a photo from the internet, or in some apps, merely receiving one (WhatsApp does this, at least), automatically puts it there. So let's amend A to reflect reality: a) CSAM scanning is applied to all photos an average iOS user will interact with if they have iCloud Photos turned on, which is the default which boils down to: a) CSAM scanning is applied to all photos an average iOS user will interact with

null_object 5y ago

So far all the comments are predictably negative and imply that Apple will at some time in the future attempt to covertly implement the feature in secret. Another take would be that they took on-board the extensive public criticism, and changed their minds.

raxxorrax 5y ago
I would have thought they continue the practice but because of the bad publicity will remove all mentions of it. Is it confirmed they won't scan user files? Because I would assume that they still do. As for the negativity. That is based on experience with large tech companies.
gentleman11 5y ago
Somebody above found a quote saying that plans are still to go forward with it eventually
BrazzVuvuzela 5y ago
If Apple would like us to believe they changed their mind, they might consider telling us they changed their mind. They haven't told us that, so why should we assume it?
- judge2020 5y ago
  They’re still a company with a PR and Legal team. Letting it die quietly means it stays out of the news cycle (as in, there are less articles about it being removed compared to if they publicly announced they were wrong).
  - BrazzVuvuzela 5y ago
    > They’re still a company a PR and Legal team All the more reason to not give them the benefit of the doubt with shit like this. If they say something flat out, that has some weight since there could be legal repercussions for lying (in theory anyway.) But not saying anything and letting people infer whatever they want? That's how companies with PR and Legal teams like to cover their asses instead of outright lying. The company says nothing and lets their supporters invent whatever headcanon is most flattering. I don't go in for that. Edit: The same thing happened when they let Apple fans infer that this feature was preparation for enabling proper E2EE. As far as I'm aware Apple never actually said that and their supporters decided to believe it without evidence, just a lot of wishful thinking.

itronitron 5y ago

>> Apple Removes All References to... First rule of scanning feature is don't talk about scanning feature.

drexlspivey 5y ago
Apple Removes All References to [undefined]

bangonkeyboard 5y ago

Absent an on-record commitment that this surveillance has been abandoned, I don't put it past Apple to deploy it silently in a minor point-update and then reveal it later, similar to how they secretly converted iOS end-users' filesystems to APFS in versions prior to its official release. They could then point to nobody noticing the deployment as purported evidence that privacy concerns were overblown.

matthewdgreen 5y ago

My prediction is that client-side CSAM scanning is indeed dead, but Apple will make the “easy” decision to perform server-side scanning. The problem is that this decision will lock them out of offering an (increasingly standard) E2EE backup capability. I don’t know that the Apple execs have grappled with the implications of this, long term. But at least it’s an improvement.

giansegato 5y ago
They've been already doing server side CSAM, for a while, on iCloud pics. Their issue was targeting all media that wasn't uploaded.
- snowwrestler 5y ago
  The system they proposed would only have scanned images in the process of being uploaded—so, the opposite of your 2nd sentence. There was some reporting that Apple does server-side CSAM scanning, but based on the volume of matches they report, it must be extremely limited. Apple never said it this way, but many people assumed that Apple designed this client-side scanning system so that they could then encrypt iCloud data with client-side keys, which would provide end to end encryption for customer backups… and prevent any server-side scanning. This is likely what Matthew is referring to.
  - zerkten 5y ago
    From a read of the expert opinions on the CSAM topic when this blew up. From that, it seemed like you had to be all in, or keeping out of active CSAM scanning/monitoring for legal reasons. They noted the match volume and came to the same conclusion. With the attention I don't see how Apple can delay taking some action here. A new external liability that can be attacked in different ways. Either they need to level up the CSAM scanning server-side to increase compliance, or they need to reimplement the client-side approach. The latter approach is probably much better from their perspective for various reasons. Ultimately, they might have been better giving this a lower profile overall and effectively have sought public attention of law enforcement to provide some cover. The authorities are going to get this in some fashion eventually.

mrtksn 5y ago

I strongly believe that this feature could have broken Apple’s brand irreparably. %99.9 of us are not pedophiles but personal devices that snitch you to the police(with extra steps) is something that most people will not accept. The proposed database for snitching was CSAM but once the system there, the devices become the pocket police that can receive any kind of scan-match-snitch instructions. This would be the point where humanity embraces total control. That said, an offline version might be workable. Think 2E2 encrypted devices that can be scanned against a database with physical access to the device upon approval from the device owner. Imagine a person being investigated through standard police work, it can be used to prove the existence or the lack of the existence of the materials without exposing unrelated and private information if the person accepts to cooperate.

BrazzVuvuzela 5y ago
> are more Typo of abhor?
- mrtksn 5y ago
  Yep, thanks

endisneigh 5y ago

I never understood the big deal about this. If you use most cloud file synching services you are already being scanned, and if you don't, this (CSAM) thing wouldn't have affected you anyway. The main rebuttal is that people claimed that Apple could expand the scanning to photos you aren't sending to iCloud. If you believe that though, then not using Apple devices (regardless of whether they implement CSAM or not) is clearly the move. tldr: if you trust apple, this doesn't matter, and if you don't, you shouldn't use apple devices anyway.

fsflover 5y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29564794 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29564794
mikehall314 5y ago
Many people were upset or annoyed at the idea of their own device spying on them. I can understand that. However, the major issue for me is the database of "forbidden" neural hashes which you are not permitted to have on your phone. Who controls what goes into that database? Right now, it's only CSAM and Apple have said they pinky-swear that if they're told to add other things they will refuse. Any maybe they will. Maybe Tim Cook will fight tooth-and-nail to avoid adding non-CSAM hashes to that list. But then maybe Tim retires in five years time and his replacement doesn't have the appetite for that fight. Or maybe Apple gets court order saying "you MUST also report this sort of content too". Maybe that list of forbidden hashes now includes political imagery, the picture from Tiananmen Square, known anti-government memes, etc. Once the technology is created and deployed, the only thing preventing that sort of over-reach is Apple's resolve against governmental pressure; even if you'd trust Tim Cook with your life, I can completely see why that would give people pause.
- endisneigh 5y ago
  > However, the major issue for me is the database of "forbidden" neural hashes which you are not permitted to have on your phone. Who controls what goes into that database? Right now, it's only CSAM and Apple have said they pinky-swear that if they're told to add other things they will refuse. This isn't what was being proposed. What was being proposed was that if you had a photo that resolved to a "forbidden" hash, upon being uploaded to iCloud data would be sent to Apple. Presumably after some arbitrary amount of times this happens, information would then be sent to the local government. If you were not using iCloud to store photos then it wouldn't matter either way (according to Apple).

yelskcol 5y ago

Seems bizarre that this is what people take issue with and yet they're happy otherwise to hand over their data to FAANG companies. If you're concerned about privacy / data misuse you shouldn't be using these services at all and you should have been pointing out the issues years ago.

fsflover 5y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27897975 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27897975
authed 5y ago
Data stored in the cloud should be considered public (at this time), but not the data on your device.

balozi 5y ago

> Apple has quietly nixed all mentions of CSAM from its Child Safety webpage, suggesting its controversial plan to detect child sexual abuse images on iPhones and iPads may hang in the balance following significant criticism of its methods. OR more likely suggests that Apple prefers to continue its program in secret.

sixhobbits 5y ago

@dang suggested title update as the important bit is cut off Apple Removes References to CSAM Scanning from Child Safety Webpage

xunn0026 5y ago

Reminder that Internet Archive has a 2-to-1 Matching Gift campaign for donations: https://archive.org/donate https://archive.org/donate It's quite important to see what a given page wrote.

amelius 5y ago

> Apple Removes All References to Controversial CSAM Scanning Feature from Its... I was hoping to read "Source Code" next.

Traubenfuchs 5y ago

I still don't understand what's the goal here? It certainly isn't about catching child abuse. Any non completely stupid predator will have switched to Android already. Who is paying Apple to develop this feature that has zero (or negative!) value to the end user? Is it governments that want to scan end user devices for content declared forbidden by them?

LatteLazy 5y ago

I don't get why they ever green lit this "feature". It's unpopular with at least some users, it flies in the face of their big push for privacy and it increases their liability. Who approves such a request!?

LinuxBender 5y ago

Is Apple's CSAM scanning operationally different than Windows 10 SmartScreen [1]? [1] - https://www.windowscentral.com/how-disable-smartscreen-trusted-app-windows-10 https://www.windowscentral.com/how-disable-smartscreen-trust...

kevinmgranger 5y ago
Yes. One is application binaries, the other is photos.
- LinuxBender 5y ago
  Has anyone verified that it only scans binaries?
  - kf6nux 5y ago
    Probably. It's not just about 1 in 8 billion people having taken the time to look, it's also about 1 in (what I'm guessing is) at least 100 people at Microsoft not leaking it. Apple had a leak before it was even released. Secrets are hard to keep.

theHIDninja 5y ago

noisy_boy 5y ago

People like us who do not want this kind of intrusion have other things to do and lives to live. People driving such initiatives do such things to make their living. They will keep pushing for it and eventually we will be too busy/forgetful/tired to stop it. Unfortunately these issues are never prominent points in the political discussion and get sidelined either by vested interests or people's ignorance/lack of information or combination of such factors. I wish I had the optimism to see hope in these matters.

BiteCode_dev 5y ago

It's removed from marketing material, but is it removed from the code? Since the OS is proprietary, how do we know they didn't go for it anyway?

grishka 5y ago
> Since the OS is proprietary, how do we know they didn't go for it anyway? Reverse engineering is a thing.
- aembleton 5y ago
  Have you reverse engineered iOS?
  - grishka 5y ago
    I haven't reverse engineered iOS itself because I've never had any reasons to, but I have reverse engineered third-party iOS apps (dumped from a jailbroken device) and some parts of macOS.
  - judge2020 5y ago
    Well, someone did: https://9to5mac.com/2021/08/18/apples-csam-detection-reverse-engineered/ https://9to5mac.com/2021/08/18/apples-csam-detection-reverse...
- nicce 5y ago
  Good luck on not being more than half year behind the latest release, with decent accuracy. That really takes some effort.
- BiteCode_dev 5y ago
  An expensive, hard, long and unreliable thing.
jeromegv 5y ago
How do you know it’s not on android?

jetsetgo 5y ago

The feature is already implemented. Now just in secret. Pumping all user data straight to FBI

kumarsw 5y ago

This case reminds me a bit of the big stink with the Daraprim price hikes and Martin Shkreli being dumb enough to be the public face of it. That worked out pretty bad for him but also bad for everyone else, because now we had a guy to blame for it, instead of asking the harder questions like "why aren't drug prices regulated?" Utilities must go to the public utility commission to raise rates so why is the same not done for drugs? The federal government stockpiles oil in case of shortages, why is it not responsible for ensuring that drug production is continued? The maddening thing about the Apple CSAM scanning controversy is that I still have no idea which legislation Apple is complying with, and it's difficult to find out any reporting on that aspect. US? UK? EU? Clearly there is/are some government organization(s) with teeth long enough that Apple is not willing to go to court again as was the case with the San Bernandino shooter. Point is, whether or not Apple has been dishonest about this whole thing, they are still just a distraction.

syshum 5y ago
>> Utilities must go to the public utility commission to raise rates Which I have never seen a denial of so I am not sure that is much of a check
treis 5y ago
There's a grand bargain where tech companies are granted immunity from user generated content in exchange for moderating that content. Apple's move is to try and maintain that bargain while moving to E2E encryption.
- Syonyk 5y ago
  > Apple's move is to try and maintain that bargain while moving to E2E encryption. It could be. It makes sense as a precursor to it. However, unless I've missed something, at no point in the entire debacle did Apple say "Yes, we're going to be moving iCloud to E2EE, and this allows us to do it. If you opt into this, the gains are that you can enable full encryption for everything else, and we literally can't see it on the servers." Apple, to the best of my knowledge, never said that, nor even implied it. It was, "We're adding this to what we can do now, take it."

throwawaymanbot 5y ago

Removing all reference does not mean their surveillance infra is off your phone.

whatever1 5y ago

If it is already implemented how would we even know. I believe that since iOS is doing ML scanning locally anyway, it is doing hash checks too.

ksec 5y ago

I am glad, that finally, a healthy dose of skepticism are applied to Apple. Finally. Even on site like Macrumors.com.

citizenpaul 5y ago

It's incredibly disturbing to me how little much of the HN crowd seems to understand how these systems like CSAM actually work. I'm not talking about the tech or programming. This is a fast track tool to putting anyone in jail for the most despised crime a person can commit. The tool has no oversight, no transparency, no counter, no clear your name, no real usage definitions other than relentless spying on the "protect the children" fallacy. Most people don't understand how life destroying a false accusation is once the government paperwork is started. At that point like it or not you are basically considered guilty by all the agents of the governement by default. Their jobs are to prosecute not eliminate false positives. Once you have been on their radar your life will never ever be the same. And since it is CP related you will not even get helpful people willing to touch it with a 10ft pole cause of fear they may be implicated. CSAM is a dastardly and effective way to establish a totalitarian rule by fear of life in jail, nothing more.

junon 5y ago
> It's incredibly disturbing to me how little much of the HN crowd seems to understand how these systems like CSAM actually work. Dunno. I remember most people on HN were absolutely pissed this was even being considered. My takeaway is that most people here understand it to a large enough degree that they don't like it.
_fat_santa 5y ago
Stuff like this gives me pause in the tech industry. My brother is in med-school and always joke with him that the worst thing I can at work is take a website down and the worst thing he can do is kill someone. But with tech like this, you can literally kill someone with it. Sure you're not actually "killing" anyone, but the decisions these systems make can drive someone to end their life, whether or not the accusations by the machine are true. I wouldn't want to be the guy building that software.
- commandlinefan 5y ago
  > can drive someone to end their life Don't underestimate the possibility of somebody else ending their lives for them in a fit of righteous rage.

nunez 5y ago

I am impressed and scared about how quickly media coverage and "public outrage" scaled down after the first few weeks this feature was announced. While I agree with the technology and its mission, I'm glad that Apple walked it back while they try to improve its messaging and privacy.

kf6nux 5y ago

The page also no longer references the iMessage forced snitching on children. Was that covered in another news story?

kingcharles 5y ago

Does anyone know if the law enforcement file signature databases use SHA or MD5? My guess is that they are all MD5 signatures. So - my question is - can I get a file onto someone's device that will match a CSA image, but is actually not at all CSA? (i.e. basically a more serious "SWAT" attack because it ends with the person potentially spending years in jail and their life ruined)

tester89 5y ago

> *Update*: Apple spokesperson Shane Bauer told The Verge that though the CSAM detection feature is no longer mentioned on its website, plans for CSAM detection have not changed since September, which means CSAM detection is still coming in the future.

irq-1 5y ago
https://www.theverge.com/2021/12/15/22837631/apple-csam-detection-child-safety-feature-webpage-removal-delay https://www.theverge.com/2021/12/15/22837631/apple-csam-dete...
matheusmoreira 5y ago
So it's just damage control.

readonthegoapp 5y ago

I presume Apple is going to come out and announce tomorrow or so that they have decided to rejoin QAnon in persuing the sexual exploitation of children? They were _very_ committed to their story -- that this tech was not primarily or just about spying on everyone for the NSA and other agencies and governments -- so it's not really credible that they just changed their minds. Maybe just decided to stop marketing it until they can drum up some fake news to support crushing dissdance with this tech.

somuchlan 5y ago

What I do not understand is why there is not more press on this.. They literally did not budge and shipped the product as presented from months prior, yet, no coverage