4 ms·
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 "fo
by 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).
- mikehall314 5y agoI don't think anything I've said contradicts that. Although Apple said they would only scan content which was uploaded to iCloud Photos, scanning still takes place locally on-device.
- endisneigh 5y agoI’m not saying you made a contradiction - I’m saying that the files in question would’ve been scanned either way. The question is simply whether or not you trust and believe Apple. If you don’t it doesn’t make any difference whether it’s being scanned on device or not.
- mikehall314 5y agoI'm sorry - when you said "this isn't what was being proposed" I must have mis-understood what you meant.
- zionic 5y ago>Maybe Tim Cook will fight tooth-and-nail to avoid adding non-CSAM hashes to that list. 1) Tim Cool will have no knowledge of this when the government inevitably expands the hash list 2) Apple gets a list of hashes, not content, from NCMEC which is an unconstitutional quasi-governmental agency created by congress and funded by the government to bypass the 4th amendment. 3) Apple will simply get an updated list of hashes and has no reasonable means to verify what the hashes from any given government are.
- Syonyk 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. The problem with this is that we already know "National Security Letters with Gag Orders" exist, and we know that the US government, at least, doesn't mind using those. "You will do this thing and you will tell nobody that you've done this thing." The Lavabit rabbit hole is a case study here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavabit#Suspension_and_gag_order https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavabit#Suspension_and_gag_ord...