7 ms·

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.libertyclic

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.
        kemayo 5y ago
        Isn't this a separate issue to the one the grandparent was complaining about? I can't see anything about child porn related to this person, just a lot of talk about money laundering. Also, are you sure there were no charges filed? Some cursory googling turns up articles including a PDF of the indictment [1] and more-recent articles seem to refer to an ongoing process [2]. [1]: https://manchesterinklink.com/fbi-descends-on-keene-and-surrounding-areas-as-part-of-ongoing-federal-investigation/ https://manchesterinklink.com/fbi-descends-on-keene-and-surr... [2]: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/08/bitcoin-ian-freeman-fbi-doj.html https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/08/bitcoin-ian-freeman-...
  - 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.

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.
      - kemayo 5y ago
        Isn't this a separate issue to the one the grandparent was complaining about? I can't see anything about child porn related to this person, just a lot of talk about money laundering. Also, are you sure there were no charges filed? Some cursory googling turns up articles including a PDF of the indictment [1] and more-recent articles seem to refer to an ongoing process [2]. [1]: https://manchesterinklink.com/fbi-descends-on-keene-and-surrounding-areas-as-part-of-ongoing-federal-investigation/ https://manchesterinklink.com/fbi-descends-on-keene-and-surr... [2]: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/08/bitcoin-ian-freeman-fbi-doj.html https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/08/bitcoin-ian-freeman-...
- 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.