4 ms·

You're taking the analogy too literally. I was merely responding to the question posed by MBCook in general, not in this particular case. Performing an operatio

You're taking the analogy too literally. I was merely responding to the question posed by MBCook in general, not in this particular case. Performing an operation in the user's device is inherently more intrusive than performing the exact same operation in the server. Incidentally, this scanning using hashes is indistinguishable from malware. Someone other than the user is instructing the device to perform operations that under no circumstances will benefit the user. Would this be tolerated if the list of hashes included copyrighted files, or prohibited books? I'm constantly disappointed by how effective "won't somebody please think of the children" is.

MBCook 4y ago
> Performing an operation in the user's device is inherently more intrusive than performing the exact same operation in the server. Why? That’s the part I don’t get. People state that like it’s obvious on its face and it’s not to me. If you perform an identical operation on a server, why is it better than performing the same operation on my device? The result is identical. The inputs are identical.
- deadbeeves 4y ago
  Well, because that's what "intrusive" means. Your property is being intruded into in order to use it for the benefit of someone other than you. Your property is yours. It's in your possession because you paid for it. It should only do something because you tell it to or because it will help it to better respond to your commands later. It should never act against your interests. You would not buy a microphone that eavesdropped on you, right? It should be equally unacceptable that your computers read your files, perform some computation on them, and send the results to some remote location without your intervention. On the other hand, when you transfer your data to someone else's computer, you're relinquishing some control over it. Just like how your computer should serve you, that computer will serve its operator, and that operator's interests may be adversarial to you.
  - sfvegandude 4y ago
    > It should be equally unacceptable that your computers read your files, perform some computation on them, and send the results to some remote location without your intervention. I hear you. I really do. The world you describe is the world I want to live in. But it’s not the world we live in. Your device is so complex, does so many operations per second, has so many sensors, sends so much data, receives so much data, that it is functionally impossible for a person to consent to everything that their device does. For all intents and purposes, you own the device, but have very little control over it. This has been true since smartphones came into existence. So to take a stance like yours — and all-or-nothing stance, a declaration of sovereignty from the The Way It Works — is, I’m sorry to say, delusional. Demanding that perfect be the enemy of the good is exactly how we will sleepwalk into the dystopian surveillance state.
    - deadbeeves 4y ago
      You're looking at it the wrong way. You're saying that it's impractical to have perfect knowledge of everything the device is doing, but in fact that's not necessary. All it would take is to have laws that make it illegal to inspect data in a user's computer except by confiscating the device with a warrant. That would remove all incentive for LEO and companies acting on their behalf to pull stunts like these. It would also mean they would have to have very good tracking to prevent tainting of evidence (since it would otherwise be difficult to tell where a piece of data came from). Obviously this would not secure you from all attackers (e.g. imagine you want to keep some trade secrets, secret), but nothing other than good infosec would. The problem is that a lot of people don't understand why privacy is important and why compromising it for what seems like good reasons is dangerous. Such people don't understand that some laws that make it easier to get away with crimes can still be good.
JohnBooty 4y ago
I certainly agree that "won't somebody please think of the children" has been exploited countless times in various shameful and downright evil ways. (And tangentially, I'm not even sure that spotting traders of known CSAM is even a great way to combat the extremely real problem of pedophilia. Feels like another "war on drugs", where we target end users, as opposed to addressing the actual roots of the problem) In a way, Apple is the victim of that here - they need to comply with laws based on "think of the children" rhetoric. There are various current and proposed laws in various places around the world that compel Apple to share cloud content with various law enforcement agencies. Various current and future laws may compel Apple and other cloud hosts to actively scan for and report various things on behalf of government. This is... not great. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I think we agree on that much? We also agree that it is at best impractical for Apple to flaunt the law of nations, yes? They are powerful, but they can't just defy federal law in a brazen and public way. This is the context in which Apple's on-device image fingerprint scanning was conceived. They would like to enable E2E encryption for users for privacy's sake (because privacy is also a unique selling point vs. Google) while simultaneously complying with law. If you want to argue that it sucks: sure. That's totally valid. The alternatives are certainly viable and even commendable: running your own "cloud", eschewing cloud storage, shunning smartphones entirely, etc. However, it seems like most people like and want cloud storage. Working within the constraints of "people want cloud storage" and "we can't openly defy multiple world governments", Apple's CSAM scanning proposal felt like clearly the best possible (least evil, if you prefer) cloud solution that doesn't involve exiting the market entirely or establishing their own offshore data centers and declaring them sovereign nations.
- deadbeeves 4y ago
  >(And tangentially, I'm not even sure that spotting traders of known CSAM is even a great way to combat the extremely real problem of pedophilia. Feels like another "war on drugs", where we target end users, as opposed to addressing the actual roots of the problem) Agreed. >We also agree that it is at best impractical for Apple to flaunt the law of nations, yes? It's unclear to me what law would be violated by both storing encrypted data on their systems that they don't have the keys for and not scanning client devices.

MBCook 4y ago

> Performing an operation in the user's device is inherently more intrusive than performing the exact same operation in the server. Why? That’s the part I don’t get. People state that like it’s obvious on its face and it’s not to me. If you perform an identical operation on a server, why is it better than performing the same operation on my device? The result is identical. The inputs are identical.

deadbeeves 4y ago
Well, because that's what "intrusive" means. Your property is being intruded into in order to use it for the benefit of someone other than you. Your property is yours. It's in your possession because you paid for it. It should only do something because you tell it to or because it will help it to better respond to your commands later. It should never act against your interests. You would not buy a microphone that eavesdropped on you, right? It should be equally unacceptable that your computers read your files, perform some computation on them, and send the results to some remote location without your intervention. On the other hand, when you transfer your data to someone else's computer, you're relinquishing some control over it. Just like how your computer should serve you, that computer will serve its operator, and that operator's interests may be adversarial to you.
- sfvegandude 4y ago
  > It should be equally unacceptable that your computers read your files, perform some computation on them, and send the results to some remote location without your intervention. I hear you. I really do. The world you describe is the world I want to live in. But it’s not the world we live in. Your device is so complex, does so many operations per second, has so many sensors, sends so much data, receives so much data, that it is functionally impossible for a person to consent to everything that their device does. For all intents and purposes, you own the device, but have very little control over it. This has been true since smartphones came into existence. So to take a stance like yours — and all-or-nothing stance, a declaration of sovereignty from the The Way It Works — is, I’m sorry to say, delusional. Demanding that perfect be the enemy of the good is exactly how we will sleepwalk into the dystopian surveillance state.
  - deadbeeves 4y ago
    You're looking at it the wrong way. You're saying that it's impractical to have perfect knowledge of everything the device is doing, but in fact that's not necessary. All it would take is to have laws that make it illegal to inspect data in a user's computer except by confiscating the device with a warrant. That would remove all incentive for LEO and companies acting on their behalf to pull stunts like these. It would also mean they would have to have very good tracking to prevent tainting of evidence (since it would otherwise be difficult to tell where a piece of data came from). Obviously this would not secure you from all attackers (e.g. imagine you want to keep some trade secrets, secret), but nothing other than good infosec would. The problem is that a lot of people don't understand why privacy is important and why compromising it for what seems like good reasons is dangerous. Such people don't understand that some laws that make it easier to get away with crimes can still be good.

JohnBooty 4y ago

I certainly agree that "won't somebody please think of the children" has been exploited countless times in various shameful and downright evil ways. (And tangentially, I'm not even sure that spotting traders of known CSAM is even a great way to combat the extremely real problem of pedophilia. Feels like another "war on drugs", where we target end users, as opposed to addressing the actual roots of the problem) In a way, Apple is the victim of that here - they need to comply with laws based on "think of the children" rhetoric. There are various current and proposed laws in various places around the world that compel Apple to share cloud content with various law enforcement agencies. Various current and future laws may compel Apple and other cloud hosts to actively scan for and report various things on behalf of government. This is... not great. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I think we agree on that much? We also agree that it is at best impractical for Apple to flaunt the law of nations, yes? They are powerful, but they can't just defy federal law in a brazen and public way. This is the context in which Apple's on-device image fingerprint scanning was conceived. They would like to enable E2E encryption for users for privacy's sake (because privacy is also a unique selling point vs. Google) while simultaneously complying with law. If you want to argue that it sucks: sure. That's totally valid. The alternatives are certainly viable and even commendable: running your own "cloud", eschewing cloud storage, shunning smartphones entirely, etc. However, it seems like most people like and want cloud storage. Working within the constraints of "people want cloud storage" and "we can't openly defy multiple world governments", Apple's CSAM scanning proposal felt like clearly the best possible (least evil, if you prefer) cloud solution that doesn't involve exiting the market entirely or establishing their own offshore data centers and declaring them sovereign nations.

deadbeeves 4y ago
>(And tangentially, I'm not even sure that spotting traders of known CSAM is even a great way to combat the extremely real problem of pedophilia. Feels like another "war on drugs", where we target end users, as opposed to addressing the actual roots of the problem) Agreed. >We also agree that it is at best impractical for Apple to flaunt the law of nations, yes? It's unclear to me what law would be violated by both storing encrypted data on their systems that they don't have the keys for and not scanning client devices.