5 ms·

This necessitates a workflow where both the photos and decryption keys are accessible by the same server and that there is a security workflow to request the us

This necessitates a workflow where both the photos and decryption keys are accessible by the same server and that there is a security workflow to request the users decryption keys without the user involved. This is specifically what Apple is trying to avoid - they are intentionally pushing an environment where the user must be involved to get the keys, by way of their account password and/or other enforcement mechanisms designed to ensure only the real user can access such keys. This is discussed in detail in their Apple Platform Security guide: https://help.apple.com/pdf/security/en_US/apple-platform-security-guide.pdf https://help.apple.com/pdf/security/en_US/apple-platform-sec... All of the facial recognition, object identification, etc is all done on-device for the same reason. By contrast Google can and does do this in the cloud - and there are Google servers that intentionally have access to decrypt your photos. iCloud backup was previously a vector that bypassed this, however they also today announced they are fixing that: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33897793 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33897793 "Apple introduces end-to-end encryption for backups"

_jal 4y ago
Sure, from a technical perspective, it is a nice solution to a set of problems. But there are many serious problems with it. I'll isolate one: an on-device content surveillance mechanism is a slippery slope to a bad, bad place. As the saying from the 90s goes, "child porn [CSAM] is the root password to the US Constitution." It is bad enough that people are willing to suspend their better judgement to do something about it. But after you already have the mechanism accepted an in place, it is far easier to add to it. Pick your boogeyman: you're giving all of them a lovely tool to address their desires. Dissent suppression and Winnie-the-Poo detection for Xi, Erdogan gets to sniff out Golem memes, and choose-your-own horror for the coming dictator of the US. It is far harder to tell a sovereign, "we could easily do that, but will not" than "we don't have a mechanism to do that." And pretending that it won't happen doesn't pass the laugh test - we have seen this show many, many times. But if you want to argue, start by explaining how Apple's jumping to implement the 10-minute-max sharing limit shows how they'd stand up to China about this.
- lathiat 4y ago
  I agree there is a slippery slope concern, and Apple has themselves made related arguments such as the FBI case and not wanting to create a software update to decrypt the contents of a phone. However that is contrasted with a very real and much more practical concern of malicious parties getting access to your cloud stored photos. It would help to note Apple also today announced "Advanced Data Protection" in iCloud which closes the hole where iCloud Backups, iCloud Photos and various other bits of data were technically decryptable by Apple. They've closed that (but it's opt-in, to balance the average user losing all their photos against other users desire to be secure even if it means losing their data). Details: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202303#advanced https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202303#advanced However even without the "Advanced Data Protection" what I said about not having a workflow for any Apple server to "normally" request both the keys and photo data is also still good security.
- ec109685 4y ago
  To detect Winnie-the-poo, it required a code push of a new database to all clients. If that’s the bar, than a corrupt apple could also push a software update tomorrow that enabled such scanning, whether this scheme was implemented or not.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

_jal 4y ago

Sure, from a technical perspective, it is a nice solution to a set of problems. But there are many serious problems with it. I'll isolate one: an on-device content surveillance mechanism is a slippery slope to a bad, bad place. As the saying from the 90s goes, "child porn [CSAM] is the root password to the US Constitution." It is bad enough that people are willing to suspend their better judgement to do something about it. But after you already have the mechanism accepted an in place, it is far easier to add to it. Pick your boogeyman: you're giving all of them a lovely tool to address their desires. Dissent suppression and Winnie-the-Poo detection for Xi, Erdogan gets to sniff out Golem memes, and choose-your-own horror for the coming dictator of the US. It is far harder to tell a sovereign, "we could easily do that, but will not" than "we don't have a mechanism to do that." And pretending that it won't happen doesn't pass the laugh test - we have seen this show many, many times. But if you want to argue, start by explaining how Apple's jumping to implement the 10-minute-max sharing limit shows how they'd stand up to China about this.

lathiat 4y ago
I agree there is a slippery slope concern, and Apple has themselves made related arguments such as the FBI case and not wanting to create a software update to decrypt the contents of a phone. However that is contrasted with a very real and much more practical concern of malicious parties getting access to your cloud stored photos. It would help to note Apple also today announced "Advanced Data Protection" in iCloud which closes the hole where iCloud Backups, iCloud Photos and various other bits of data were technically decryptable by Apple. They've closed that (but it's opt-in, to balance the average user losing all their photos against other users desire to be secure even if it means losing their data). Details: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202303#advanced https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202303#advanced However even without the "Advanced Data Protection" what I said about not having a workflow for any Apple server to "normally" request both the keys and photo data is also still good security.
ec109685 4y ago
To detect Winnie-the-poo, it required a code push of a new database to all clients. If that’s the bar, than a corrupt apple could also push a software update tomorrow that enabled such scanning, whether this scheme was implemented or not.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]