10 ms·
Didn't apple also recommend on-device scanning for these kind of pictures as well a while ago? Glad to see they now oppose it but it's hard to gauge how sincer
by apexalpha 3y ago
Didn't apple also recommend on-device scanning for these kind of pictures as well a while ago?
Glad to see they now oppose it but it's hard to gauge how sincere it is given their history of trying to implement it themselves.
- grrywlsn 3y agoI’d argue their attempts at having a plan for CSAM were preempting these exact types of arguments being made in bad faith by governments like the UK, who are actively engaging children’s charities to give their goal of breaking e2ee have some emotional societal weight.
- camhart 3y agoCSAM is a real problem. Its not merely emotional weight.
- mikestew 3y agoI don’t believe that anyone is saying that it isn’t. That doesn’t preclude the government from preventing a “real problem” going to waste.
- BLKNSLVR 3y ago> give their goal of breaking e2ee have some emotional societal weight. Breaking E2EE is their goal. CSAM is the McGuffin.
- yieldcrv 3y agoCan your elaborate on your trigger here? Why did you feel that the phrasing minimized it enough to miss the point?
- bee_rider 3y agoI don’t read their comment as particularly triggered, but if you honestly think they were triggered by a reference to CSAM, this is a wildly inappropriate question to ask. In general I think it is better to not project some emotional reading onto other people’s posts.
- yieldcrv 3y agostill don't get it, is this one of those things I'll magically be attuned to if I become a parent (but only maybe?), or does it require personal experience? or is there anything I can read about
- bee_rider 3y agoGenerally “triggered” is used to describe the recall of previous traumatic experiences, i.e, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trauma_trigger https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trauma_trigger So it is obvious why somebody wouldn’t ask for more details on that sort of thing, right? Maybe you are just using it to ask why they are annoyed, and weren’t aware of the specific definition that phrase?
- yieldcrv 3y agoPeople have definitely diluted the word trigger, and it is impossible to tell the difference between someone referencing a traumatic experience or something akin to annoyance or being distracted. 'Triggered my anxiety' where anxiety is also diluted to 'something I would prefer not to deal with'. In this case, it seemed like the phrasing was enough to distract them from a discussion that didnt need to be derailed
- bee_rider 3y agoSince you didn’t give any indication that you were using the “diluted” meaning, I’d say it is more accurate to say that you miscommunicated, rather than that anyone got distracted.
- yieldcrv 3y agoOkay I’ll take it I was curious about why they felt compelled to take the thread that direction when the meaning was clear. They felt CSAM was being minimized when that was a red herring to the discussion.
- 3y ago
- shapefrog 3y agoCan your elaborate on your trigger here? Was it someone daring to suggest that molesting a 3 year old is actually bad, like really bad?
- deelowe 3y agoIt is inappropriate to ask someone about their trigger in such contexts. Why would you expect someone to go into details on past traumas like this?
- MarcoZavala 3y ago[dead]
- themitigating 3y agoIf they are using their experience to advocate for changes that affect me then they should justify it
- deelowe 3y agoJustification wasn't requested. Elaborating on their "trigger" was. Again, this is abhorrent. No one should be required to go into details about being sexually assaulted as a means of "justification."
- Al0neStar 3y agoCSAM has nothing to do with encryption and it predates the internet. https://youtu.be/aAeUeG-PTD0 https://youtu.be/aAeUeG-PTD0
- lost_tourist 3y agoThere is some overlap, since you can't do a CSAM scan on properly encrypted data. It is not completely separate in a modern context of what is going on with IT.
- JohnFen 3y agoOf course. But that emotional weight is very often cynically used in order to get people to go along with things they consider unacceptable.
- camhart 3y agoI understand your argument, and I appreciate it. The same could be said of of the "other side" of this argument though. The "government will spy on you!"--is also emotional weight cynically being used to get people to go along with technical solutions that support CSAM. I'd argue society would generally agree CSAM is unacceptable and we're allowing it right now. Many are quick to adopt the assumption that this law is an intentional and cleverly designed "attack on our rights to e2ee", as fact. If one can't recognize it's at least a poor attempt to balance the right to privacy with protecting kids, then I struggle to see how they're being honest with themselves. I'm not arguing this law proposes the correct solution that should be adopted. I'm not arguing the surveillance state isn't licking their chops. I'm simply trying to point out that CSAM is a real problem. People really care about it. And it's factually wrong to claim otherwise. It's also wrong and harmful to attribute motive based on assumptions. While you haven't done this, many others have. Instead of taking part in a constructive debate by arguing specific points, they try to paint a false motive on the opposition. "it's just so they can spy on you!" is roughly equivalent to "you view CSAM and that's why you don't want to protect our kids". These approaches are not how you reach a good solution that balances both sides of the argument. They're just throwing the oppositions legitimate concerns under the bus. I'd also add, while e2ee is strong, unless you're verifying and compiling all the code you run on your device yourself, Apple/Google/etc still maintains the technical ability to snoop on you regardless of this law. I assume the bar to snoop on someone would most likely be lowered if laws like this are passed. But it's still technically possible (and likely happens).
- JohnFen 3y ago> I'm simply trying to point out that CSAM is a real problem. People really care about it. And it's factually wrong to claim otherwise. Very nearly nobody is arguing otherwise, though. > Apple/Google/etc still maintains the technical ability to snoop on you regardless of this law. Absolutely. Not only can they, but they do.
- MarcoZavala 3y ago[dead]
- cabalamat 3y ago>CSAM is a real problem. It's is not nearly as big a problem as states wanting to oppress people.
- causality0 3y agoRight. I don't think people realize there is no such thing as a free lunch. Having something, in this case a free society, means making a tradeoff. The dials on safety, happiness, and freedom cannot all be at 100 percent at the same time, and it is far too easy to fall into the trap of thinking that even the tiniest bit of safety is worth a huge amount of freedom in exchange.
- andrei_says_ 3y agoWell, it’s a well-designed trap carefully constructed to have the strongest possible effects on our lizard brains. Maybe there are ways to check our governments’ true commitment to safety in multiple areas and draw conclusions? Environmental protection (we live in a period of climate collapse)? Food safety (sugar industry controlling legislation etc.)? Weapon licensing? Access to healthcare services and life-saving medications like insulin? Healthcare and social services for mothers and young children? Preferring diplomacy to aggression and acts of destabilization in politics? Looking at all of this I conclude that, sadly, our governments don’t seem to care much about our or our children’s safety. Looking at the efforts politicians put into staying into power and acting on personal or corruption-driven agendas… we’re not in great shape and I have the feeling that there may be some manipulation going on with intention to disrupt organizing, personal privacy, and the ability of individuals to communicate without being surveilled. All authoritarian governments absolutely hate that - for reasons having nothing to do with the safety of their citizens.
- JimDabell 3y agoNo, it was opt-in not required by law. The system was designed to work only with images as they were being uploaded to iCloud; it didn’t work with just any images on device. The receipt used for processing was generated as part of the upload process and neither the device nor backend could independently determine any useful information without coöperating with each other. It was a really interesting scheme that Apple clearly put a huge amount of thought into in order to maximise privacy. But people didn’t read the details and instead imagined it worked in a much simpler way, drowning out any useful conversation about what it was actually doing. The UK approach should be opposed, but I wouldn’t be opposed to the scheme Apple wanted to implement.
- kevin_thibedeau 3y ago> it didn’t work with just any images on device. Only a matter of time before an authoritarian regime forced them to expand its scope. Create a Pandora's box and it will be opened.
- JimDabell 3y agoAn authoritarian regime can require spying regardless. This is the exact topic we are currently discussing.
- gambiting 3y agoYes, and companies like Apple(and many others) have been successful - or at least appeared to be - at denying such requests by saying that there is no technical way to break the encryption built into their devices and communication. Now, there would be a way - once it's built it's built, there is no going back.
- JimDabell 3y ago> companies like Apple(and many others) have been successful - or at least appeared to be - at denying such requests by saying that there is no technical way to break the encryption built into their devices and communication. This is incorrect. Last time it went to court, Apple used very different arguments. > Now, there would be a way - once it's built it's built, there is no going back. Then why is the British government not asking for the system Apple designed? They are asking for something far more intrusive. Apple’s system is irrelevant to that.
- Veen 3y agoApple's plan to compare images on-device to hashes of CP was an eminently sensible attempt to give governments an alternative to banning E2EE encryption. As the government spokesperson in the article said: "companies should only implement end-to-end encryption if they can simultaneously prevent abhorrent child sexual abuse on their platforms." Apple was trying to do the latter so it has a leg to stand on when it comes to asking governments not to regulate against E2EE.
- nceqs3 3y agoThis is HN. The facts are not relevant.
- JohnFen 3y agoSo, Apple felt it had to "burn the village in order to save it"?
- willseth 3y agoI don’t understand why comments like this are getting downvoted. I understand the absolutist position against any content scanning, but Apple very clearly tried to strike a middle ground that is far less invasive than the content scanning systems in every other photo service run by Google, Microsoft, Flickr, etc. And then when everyone freaked out, Apple didn’t ship it! Meanwhile the FBI can browse all your Google Photos right now.
- JohnFen 3y agoYes, it really smells like a strange about-face. What is Apple's real stance here?
- FpUser 3y agoCompanies have only one stance - make more money. When squeezed from both sides they might try poking either in order to see what would hurt their bottom line less.
- JohnFen 3y ago> Companies have only one stance - make more money. That's not entirely correct, but close enough. Since that's a constant, we can ignore that. Outside of "make more money", different companies absolutely take different stances about things. Most companies seem to have at least some amount of consistency in their stances, though.
- FpUser 3y ago>"Most companies seem to have at least some amount of consistency in their stances, though." Do no evil?
- photonerd 3y agoTheir idea & implementation was MUCH better (and more secure & private) than the awful proposal their opposing here.
- Someone 3y agoIIRC their argument for on-device scanning was that it was a (largely) privacy-preserving way to comply with existing law. I don’t think they’re insincere if they oppose new regulations, yet begrudgingly comply with them if they become law despite their attempts to prevent that. Few people/organizations are willing to die for their principles.
- lost_tourist 3y agoI hope they go all in on privacy as a brand "distinguisher". I know corporations only exist to make a profit but stuff like this can make your brand stand out.
- joker_minmax 3y agoGlad to see someone mentioning this. It's a strange about-face for them, as I thought they still scanned iCloud