4 ms·

> Why do you trust that? Not OP, but I'll throw my two cents in. While some people on HN were hyperventilating about the CSAM thing, I was digging into the do

> Why do you trust that? Not OP, but I'll throw my two cents in. While some people on HN were hyperventilating about the CSAM thing, I was digging into the docs to see what was actually happening. In every instance, I found myself a bit more impressed with how much engineering the folks at Apple clearly put into making it work without compromising privacy. Contrary to what people kept saying here on HN. It made me a lot more suspicious of randos on HN and a bit more willing to give Apple the benefit of the doubt. I'm always amenable to more actual evidence, but as of yet that seems completely lacking. If I were more conspiracy minded I'd wonder if there was an orchestrated effort.

sneak 5y ago
People are rightfully upset about it because there is precisely zero amount of clever engineering that makes using my own hardware to spy on me and potentially report me to the police okay, morally or socially or technically. Literally no one would willingly opt in to such a thing on their computer if prompted. This appears to be the US government exercising an extrajudicial, extralegislative mandate (aka functioning as a dictatorship) with regards to a software publisher, and Apple unilaterally forcing this on users via updates. This is an authoritarian, tyrannical end run around basic human rights to due process, and if indeed it is an essential prerequisite (per the government) to Apple deploying e2e crypto, then we don't actually have freedom of expression (as Apple would presumably be punished by the federal government for publishing software that supports e2e encryption WITHOUT such literal spyware). The fact that this is even being discussed is a giant blinking red warning light about the lack of freedom in our society. Both for millions like us, who want the availability of quality tools that don't work against our personal interests and human rights, as well as Apple, who appears to not be allowed to publish software unless it contains backdoors for the cops. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-fbi-icloud-exclusive/exclusive-apple-dropped-plan-for-encrypting-backups-after-fbi-complained-sources-idUSKBN1ZK1CT https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-fbi-icloud-exclusiv... That should worry you a lot. PS: Any clientside scanning whatsoever that the user did not consent to, that reports its results to a remote party (even if only positives) is a privacy violation. You cannot scan local files in any way whatsoever (for a purpose that is explicitly against the user, that is, reporting on suspected illegal activity) without compromising privacy, even if Apple's system works perfectly as described. Clientside nonconsensual scanning is inherently a privacy violation.

sneak 5y ago

People are rightfully upset about it because there is precisely zero amount of clever engineering that makes using my own hardware to spy on me and potentially report me to the police okay, morally or socially or technically. Literally no one would willingly opt in to such a thing on their computer if prompted. This appears to be the US government exercising an extrajudicial, extralegislative mandate (aka functioning as a dictatorship) with regards to a software publisher, and Apple unilaterally forcing this on users via updates. This is an authoritarian, tyrannical end run around basic human rights to due process, and if indeed it is an essential prerequisite (per the government) to Apple deploying e2e crypto, then we don't actually have freedom of expression (as Apple would presumably be punished by the federal government for publishing software that supports e2e encryption WITHOUT such literal spyware). The fact that this is even being discussed is a giant blinking red warning light about the lack of freedom in our society. Both for millions like us, who want the availability of quality tools that don't work against our personal interests and human rights, as well as Apple, who appears to not be allowed to publish software unless it contains backdoors for the cops. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-fbi-icloud-exclusive/exclusive-apple-dropped-plan-for-encrypting-backups-after-fbi-complained-sources-idUSKBN1ZK1CT https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-fbi-icloud-exclusiv... That should worry you a lot. PS: Any clientside scanning whatsoever that the user did not consent to, that reports its results to a remote party (even if only positives) is a privacy violation. You cannot scan local files in any way whatsoever (for a purpose that is explicitly against the user, that is, reporting on suspected illegal activity) without compromising privacy, even if Apple's system works perfectly as described. Clientside nonconsensual scanning is inherently a privacy violation.