6 ms·
Apple'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
by Veen 3y ago
Apple'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.
- smoldesu 3y agoCan the FBI not browse all my iCloud photos too? I don't think a closed-source E2EE implementation would do much to change that.
- matwood 3y agoWith a subpoena they can access anything unencrypted. If a user turns on advance data protection, they cannot.
- willseth 3y agoE2EE is an option for iCloud Photos now, so no, not if it’s turned on. Not sure what you mean about closed source. If you’re implying that the FBI can break Apple’s encryption because it’s closed source, uh, sure.
- detourdog 3y agoBased on the Pen Letter laws. Anything stored with a third party can be subpoena by the government. The reasoning is if one wanted to keep it a secret they wouldn't be sharing with a third party. If you use an ISP for email the ISP can be subpoenaed with you being aware. If you want run your own mail server from your house. A search warrant of your house for the mail server is required. Different notification standards.
- matwood 3y agoYeah, I think people who are absolute about E2EE here need to remember the xkcd about the person with the wrench. Apple's reading of the tea leaves is that the government will be the one with the wrench and will ban E2EE. This was an attempt to head it off. Of course their reading could be wrong, and the government would ban anyway. Or maybe a ban never comes to fruition. I have to imagine it would ultimately end up at SCOTUS.
- JohnFen 3y ago> This was an attempt to head it off. Right, by building in what amounts to a back door.
- willseth 3y agoIt sounds like you didn’t read the paper. It’s a reporting system, not an access system. No one can actually be granted access to your photos under Apple’s scheme. One of your photos must be an exact match for photos already existing in the CSAM database, at which point a report is generated, still not with the complete image from your phone. Even if the CSAM database were compromised by the FBI, where is the back door?
- JohnFen 3y agoI did read the paper, and I understand what the system did. I suspect that you just have a more narrow definition of "back door" than I do. > One of your photos must be an exact match for photos already existing in the CSAM database, at which point a report is generated IIRC, one of your photos must match a hash that exists in the database, not an exact match to an image itself. That's the means by which end-to-end encryption is evaded. That evasion is why I call it a back door. Really, my entire problem with the scheme was that it took place on the device itself rather than in the iCloud. While all smartphones are surveillance devices already, making one as overtly a surveillance device like this sets a precedent that I think is exceedingly harmful.
- willseth 3y ago
- pseudalopex 3y agoE2EE with a back door is not E2EE.