4 ms·

Local CSAM scanning wasn't an open book either. Also, it wasn't mutually exclusive with cloud scanning.

• FloatArtifact 4y ago
  However, there was enough of an outcrying by the community and my experts that it was pulled. Therefore end users do care about privacy when they understand the implications. After all, it's hard to care when you don't have power as an end user too act on those feelings.
  • brookst 4y ago
    Do you think the current regime of Google/etc doing ad hoc scans on cloud storage, with no transparency about who is requesting scans for what, is more private?
• brookst 4y ago
  It was pretty open — auditable and cryptographically proven sources for all triggering hashes, auditable updates. And it was mutually exclusive with cloud scanning, as it was part of E2EE.
  • sedatk 4y ago
    About mutual exclusivity, you may be right. I probably misremember that specific detail, but that was before Apple enabled E2EE on iCloud. It was removed as a feature back then when they suggested local CSAM scanning. "It was pretty open" Not really. The scanning code wasn't open source. Apple didn't explain how their proprietary hashing algorithm worked, let alone providing any source code. It was just the promise of Apple about how the whole thing would work. If that's sufficient, then iCloud scanning is as open as local scanning. Auditability of DB updates doesn't mean much either. Even if a third party organization detected "new additions" to the CSAM DB, what would be the next step? There would be no way to verify if those hashes actually correspond to CSAM. A dictatorship, for example, would just say "yes it's CSAM, trust us", and you'd have no option but to trust their word. Even in the US, there is no way to verify if CSAM DB fully corresponds to actual CSAM. It's just NCMEC's word. We simply don't know.