3 ms·
You’re missing the key point that there isn’t much surface for misuse under Apples scheme. If the FBI wants to falsely accuse you of having CSAM, inserting a ha
by willseth 3y ago
You’re missing the key point that there isn’t much surface for misuse under Apples scheme. If the FBI wants to falsely accuse you of having CSAM, inserting a hash from a photo on your phone into the CSAM database is actually much more complicated than simply putting CSAM on your phone. Running the scanner on your device means they actually need to compromise your device.
- JohnFen 3y ago> You’re missing the key point that there isn’t much surface for misuse under Apples scheme. No, I didn't miss that point at all. It's just orthogonal to my objection to the scheme. I object to the idea of formally making highly personal devices like your phone into ones that are spying on you. We have more than enough of that sort of thing informally. To make it official could only make things worse for everybody, Apple users and otherwise. Since the whole thing was about photos being stored in the cloud, it would have been much less objectionable to put the scanning on the cloud side of things. At least that's actually someone else's computer and not someone using your own hardware against you.
- willseth 3y agoYour theoretical objection is divorced from any actual consequences that affect people. Why should anyone care? You state no benefits or harms other than what you feel. My point is about reality, so yes you missed it
- JohnFen 3y agoHmm. I think the opposite, that you are missing my point entirely. But, really, it's probably just that we fundamentally disagree on very basic issues. That's fair.