4 ms·

people are extremely up-in-arms about something that apple already does, and that every other cloud provider do, but when they made it public everyone went craz

people are extremely up-in-arms about something that apple already does, and that every other cloud provider do, but when they made it public everyone went crazy. now we don't have CSAM scanning, totally unencrypted and accessible iCloud Photo Library, and for what? because people want privacy. you don't own anyone else's cloud and you never will, and especially not with government intervention. while i support privacy, i also think it's like freedom of speech, in theory it sounds great but in reality you end up with nazis walking around if you don't have the ability to deter them. data on my computer == private without a warrant and due cause. data on someone's server == as private as could be, but i don't own it so i can't demand that it be secure from all aspects, especially uploading CSAM.

Clubber 5y ago
>people are extremely up-in-arms about something that apple already does, and that every other cloud provider do >data on my computer == private without a warrant and due cause. Apple technology was/will track on your phone directly via AI scanning text messages for nudity. The engine lived on your phone, not in their farm. Therefore your second statement I quoted would now be false. That's why everyone (or the ones in the know) was pissed.
- gonehome 5y ago
  Only when syncing photos to iCloud is enabled and the photo is being uploaded. That’s the critical bit. If it was operating without cloud access I’d agree with you, but it wasn’t so I don’t. It only makes sense to do this in the context of encrypting the cloud - otherwise it’s a pointless move that hurts PR.
  - hda2 5y ago
    > Only when syncing photos to iCloud is enabled and the photo is being uploaded. For now. If a "feature" like this exists, it WILL be abused like many before it.
    - gonehome 5y ago
      I don't really buy this, I don't think this feature makes abuse any more likely and it's important to be loud against features that are actually abuse vs. ones that are just adjacent to something that is abuse. The difference matters, particularly when the pragmatic approach could allow encryption of images on iCloud without any actual downside given the constraints. If people act like all actions are equivalent then we'll just end up ignored by legislators. These differences matter.
      - hda2 5y ago
        I don't think this difference is relevant here. We've seen many technological features that were supposed to be only used in a very narrow use-cases be abused by governments. Contact tracing technologies (for covid-19) being the most recent victim where they are now being used by governments to track political protesters, criminals, and seemingly anyone else that catches their fancy. I've seen this cycle play out enough time to know better. Governments never relinquish power. If client-side scanning that can report users to authorities ever becomes wide spread, governments _will_ abuse it. Democracies _will_ suffer and humanity _will_ be worse off for it.
        gonehome 5y ago
        Contact tracing is actually a perfect example. Early in the pandemic the tech companies came together to create a privacy preserving bluetooth exposure notification system that relied on phones and a clever design to prevent this kind of tracking panopticon you describe. See: https://covid19-static.cdn-apple.com/applications/covid19/current/static/contact-tracing/pdf/ExposureNotification-BluetoothSpecificationv1.2.pdf https://covid19-static.cdn-apple.com/applications/covid19/cu... The HN response was ignorant and loudly knee-jerk without understanding how any of this worked. It was stuff like this that caused this to fail to get adopted (see: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25629304 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25629304 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26957763 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26957763). This is partly why I ignore HN on topics like this. Instead, we ended up with governments just doing it via data brokers and other types of way more invasive tracking. Our response to encryption policy like Apple's that doesn't decrease privacy could lead to a similarly bad outcome.
judge2020 5y ago
> you end up with nazis walking around if you don't have the ability to deter them. In general this is required if you want freedom of speech at all, because while nazis are seen as bad by $majority_general_population today, that same $majority_general_population in 1940's Germany had their own ideals for what people with certain interests were bad. In theory, even if Nazis took over the entire US Federal apparatus today, they couldn't infringe on the rights of the citizens ands states as they did back then (at least not without hostile takeover and civil war). The entire deal with CSAM being seen as bad today is that it comes from a belief that reducing and limiting the proliferation of digital imagery containing depictions of minors being sexually abused, it will hopefully hurt the profit margins of organizations that run the abduction, human trafficking, and abuse + abuse imagery production process, via reducing exposure and liming the potential customer base (while also hopefully helping victims heal knowing that fewer and fewer people are viewing said imagery). I'm no expert in whether or not this works, perhaps there's some studies that do qualitative research on this; but either way there's no doubt that E2EE directly harms the work of the likes of PhotoDNA which aim at actually solving the issue of file sharing / image hosting services being used for the proliferation of CSAM, whether that be for advertising to new buyers or simply the means that these groups end up sharing content. So there really is a tradeoff people have to realize when they consider either side's stance; My point is that HN seems to be almost entirely one-sided on the side of privacy even if many safeguards are put in place to make it private while still enabling detection of abuse imagery, when I don't see anyone proposing more practical privacy-respecting solutions than Apple has proposed. Perhaps people thing CSAM is a fringe thing, but [0] > (Interpol) Child Sexual Exploitation Image Database (ICSEDB) network of 53 countries holds over a half a million CEM images, which have helped identify around 11,988 victims and nearly 5, 617 offenders over the eight years to December 2017 0: Broadhurst, Roderic via https://openresearch-repository.anu.edu.au/bitstream/1885/210492/1/01_Broadhurst_Child_Sex_Abuse_Images_and_2020.pdf https://openresearch-repository.anu.edu.au/bitstream/1885/21...
- kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
  > So there really is a tradeoff people have to realize when they consider either side's stance There is no tradeoff to be made. The US government is explicitly prohibited from interfering with the liberty of its citizens. Every elected official swears an oath upholding this principle.
echelon 5y ago
> i also think it's like freedom of speech, in theory it sounds great but in reality you end up with nazis walking around if you don't have the ability to deter them. I mean this in the most gentle and sincere way: This is just fascism of a different color. When you support the curtailing of freedom of speech, then you enter into a slippery slope where it's possible that new regimes can use that power against you. In all but the rarest cases where people are harassed and driven to commit suicide [1], hurtful words are just words. Sticks and stones can break your bones, but words can never hurt you. If you eliminated all of racism, sexism, and anti-LGBT feelings from the world tomorrow, you would still run into people that dislike you. That's just how people are. We're evolved apes, and a lot of us make in-group/out-group decisions on the most trivial lines. Class, style, designer clothing, attractiveness, rivalry, sports teams, school, etc., etc., etc. No matter how many layers of protection you put on, you will always run into hate and unpleasantness. You can't remove one of the most liberating and important features of our democracy - one that anticipates all types of futures and stands against any of their possible tyrannies - just to not have hurt feelings. That would be the mother of all bad trades. When things get physical, there are laws to protect you. Even hate crime laws that escalate punishments. These are adequate protections. Your brain is going to have to learn how to dust off the hurt. That's what makes us rugged, fierce, and independent. I've been called a "f*ggot", bastard (it's true), short, ugly, and many worse, entirely hurtful things throughout my life. I'd like to think I'm doing alright despite it. [1] Restraining orders and other legal protections for people being abused and bullied, especially online, need to be further developed. That said, there isn't a fine line between what politicians such as Ted Cruz face on a daily basis from Twitter and what pushes individuals such as Near to commit suicide.
- gonehome 5y ago
  For what's it's worse (since we disagree elsewhere in this thread) - I'm with you 100% here. Free speech is an important principle. The way I argue it to people arguing for various forms of suppressing it is that you can't know that you'll be the one with the power to suppress speech. In a liberal (as in classical liberalism) western society it's a core value. That's why we defend the speech of others even when they say terrible things. I think there's nuance here with private companies since their ability to moderate is an exercise of their speech, but I think Zuckerberg was generally right in his georgetown address: https://zalberico.com/essay/2020/06/16/mark-zuckerberg-and-free-speech.html https://zalberico.com/essay/2020/06/16/mark-zuckerberg-and-f...

Clubber 5y ago

>people are extremely up-in-arms about something that apple already does, and that every other cloud provider do >data on my computer == private without a warrant and due cause. Apple technology was/will track on your phone directly via AI scanning text messages for nudity. The engine lived on your phone, not in their farm. Therefore your second statement I quoted would now be false. That's why everyone (or the ones in the know) was pissed.

gonehome 5y ago
Only when syncing photos to iCloud is enabled and the photo is being uploaded. That’s the critical bit. If it was operating without cloud access I’d agree with you, but it wasn’t so I don’t. It only makes sense to do this in the context of encrypting the cloud - otherwise it’s a pointless move that hurts PR.
- hda2 5y ago
  > Only when syncing photos to iCloud is enabled and the photo is being uploaded. For now. If a "feature" like this exists, it WILL be abused like many before it.
  - gonehome 5y ago
    I don't really buy this, I don't think this feature makes abuse any more likely and it's important to be loud against features that are actually abuse vs. ones that are just adjacent to something that is abuse. The difference matters, particularly when the pragmatic approach could allow encryption of images on iCloud without any actual downside given the constraints. If people act like all actions are equivalent then we'll just end up ignored by legislators. These differences matter.
    - hda2 5y ago
      I don't think this difference is relevant here. We've seen many technological features that were supposed to be only used in a very narrow use-cases be abused by governments. Contact tracing technologies (for covid-19) being the most recent victim where they are now being used by governments to track political protesters, criminals, and seemingly anyone else that catches their fancy. I've seen this cycle play out enough time to know better. Governments never relinquish power. If client-side scanning that can report users to authorities ever becomes wide spread, governments _will_ abuse it. Democracies _will_ suffer and humanity _will_ be worse off for it.
      - gonehome 5y ago
        Contact tracing is actually a perfect example. Early in the pandemic the tech companies came together to create a privacy preserving bluetooth exposure notification system that relied on phones and a clever design to prevent this kind of tracking panopticon you describe. See: https://covid19-static.cdn-apple.com/applications/covid19/current/static/contact-tracing/pdf/ExposureNotification-BluetoothSpecificationv1.2.pdf https://covid19-static.cdn-apple.com/applications/covid19/cu... The HN response was ignorant and loudly knee-jerk without understanding how any of this worked. It was stuff like this that caused this to fail to get adopted (see: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25629304 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25629304 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26957763 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26957763). This is partly why I ignore HN on topics like this. Instead, we ended up with governments just doing it via data brokers and other types of way more invasive tracking. Our response to encryption policy like Apple's that doesn't decrease privacy could lead to a similarly bad outcome.

judge2020 5y ago

> you end up with nazis walking around if you don't have the ability to deter them. In general this is required if you want freedom of speech at all, because while nazis are seen as bad by $majority_general_population today, that same $majority_general_population in 1940's Germany had their own ideals for what people with certain interests were bad. In theory, even if Nazis took over the entire US Federal apparatus today, they couldn't infringe on the rights of the citizens ands states as they did back then (at least not without hostile takeover and civil war). The entire deal with CSAM being seen as bad today is that it comes from a belief that reducing and limiting the proliferation of digital imagery containing depictions of minors being sexually abused, it will hopefully hurt the profit margins of organizations that run the abduction, human trafficking, and abuse + abuse imagery production process, via reducing exposure and liming the potential customer base (while also hopefully helping victims heal knowing that fewer and fewer people are viewing said imagery). I'm no expert in whether or not this works, perhaps there's some studies that do qualitative research on this; but either way there's no doubt that E2EE directly harms the work of the likes of PhotoDNA which aim at actually solving the issue of file sharing / image hosting services being used for the proliferation of CSAM, whether that be for advertising to new buyers or simply the means that these groups end up sharing content. So there really is a tradeoff people have to realize when they consider either side's stance; My point is that HN seems to be almost entirely one-sided on the side of privacy even if many safeguards are put in place to make it private while still enabling detection of abuse imagery, when I don't see anyone proposing more practical privacy-respecting solutions than Apple has proposed. Perhaps people thing CSAM is a fringe thing, but [0] > (Interpol) Child Sexual Exploitation Image Database (ICSEDB) network of 53 countries holds over a half a million CEM images, which have helped identify around 11,988 victims and nearly 5, 617 offenders over the eight years to December 2017 0: Broadhurst, Roderic via https://openresearch-repository.anu.edu.au/bitstream/1885/210492/1/01_Broadhurst_Child_Sex_Abuse_Images_and_2020.pdf https://openresearch-repository.anu.edu.au/bitstream/1885/21...

kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
> So there really is a tradeoff people have to realize when they consider either side's stance There is no tradeoff to be made. The US government is explicitly prohibited from interfering with the liberty of its citizens. Every elected official swears an oath upholding this principle.

echelon 5y ago

> i also think it's like freedom of speech, in theory it sounds great but in reality you end up with nazis walking around if you don't have the ability to deter them. I mean this in the most gentle and sincere way: This is just fascism of a different color. When you support the curtailing of freedom of speech, then you enter into a slippery slope where it's possible that new regimes can use that power against you. In all but the rarest cases where people are harassed and driven to commit suicide [1], hurtful words are just words. Sticks and stones can break your bones, but words can never hurt you. If you eliminated all of racism, sexism, and anti-LGBT feelings from the world tomorrow, you would still run into people that dislike you. That's just how people are. We're evolved apes, and a lot of us make in-group/out-group decisions on the most trivial lines. Class, style, designer clothing, attractiveness, rivalry, sports teams, school, etc., etc., etc. No matter how many layers of protection you put on, you will always run into hate and unpleasantness. You can't remove one of the most liberating and important features of our democracy - one that anticipates all types of futures and stands against any of their possible tyrannies - just to not have hurt feelings. That would be the mother of all bad trades. When things get physical, there are laws to protect you. Even hate crime laws that escalate punishments. These are adequate protections. Your brain is going to have to learn how to dust off the hurt. That's what makes us rugged, fierce, and independent. I've been called a "f*ggot", bastard (it's true), short, ugly, and many worse, entirely hurtful things throughout my life. I'd like to think I'm doing alright despite it. [1] Restraining orders and other legal protections for people being abused and bullied, especially online, need to be further developed. That said, there isn't a fine line between what politicians such as Ted Cruz face on a daily basis from Twitter and what pushes individuals such as Near to commit suicide.

gonehome 5y ago
For what's it's worse (since we disagree elsewhere in this thread) - I'm with you 100% here. Free speech is an important principle. The way I argue it to people arguing for various forms of suppressing it is that you can't know that you'll be the one with the power to suppress speech. In a liberal (as in classical liberalism) western society it's a core value. That's why we defend the speech of others even when they say terrible things. I think there's nuance here with private companies since their ability to moderate is an exercise of their speech, but I think Zuckerberg was generally right in his georgetown address: https://zalberico.com/essay/2020/06/16/mark-zuckerberg-and-free-speech.html https://zalberico.com/essay/2020/06/16/mark-zuckerberg-and-f...