3 ms·

Subject matter experts have unanimously said such a technology is not possible to implement safely.

by __alexs 3y ago

finned 3y ago
[dead]
- __alexs 3y ago
  I was obviously being rhetorical. "Fixable in practice" is really not a sufficient rebuttal when the people tasked with actually building this stuff have given clear and specific reasons why building this stuff safely is impossible. That the government think it's totally fine if the government have the power to listen in on everything is not especially surprising. The problem is most people don't actually trust the government with this power.
  - finned 3y ago
    Pointing out that specific objections are fixable in practice is just a summary point - they wrote a detailed paper on this topic, which is worth reading in full: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2207.09506.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/2207.09506.pdf Do you have a reasonable counterargument to any of the points they make in this work?
    - __alexs 3y ago
      And yet Apple killed CSAM scanning months after this paper was published. Perhaps because the paper does nothing (and admits as much) to counter the issues that Apple raised about actually building and operating such a technology safely. I am familiar with this area of technology but by no means an expert. However the vast majority of people who appear to actually have experience building and running these systems all seem to disagree with the government that this is actually cool and safe and generally give much better explanations as to why that's the case than the government do. And so I side with them. Citing more vague government sources that don't directly contradict the work of the people building the things isn't a very convincing argument to me.
      - finned 3y ago
        Apple makes its choices for commercial reasons, so it will be interesting to see if they choose to introduce their client-side CSAM scanning for UK customers, or pull iMessage from this market like they threatened (which was probably an empty threat). If they go for the former, and implement their system in line with the principles that Levy and Robinson set out, would you change your mind? As this would be an indication that actually it can work in the field, if the political will is there.
        __alexs 3y ago
        No it would be an indication that Apple like money more than the privacy and safety of their users which would not be entirely surprising.
    - pera 3y ago
      The paper you are citing does not support your argument here, I would suggest you to read for instance section 6.3 where they include some of the common concerns regarding client-side scanning, or the conclusion of section 7 ("Why AI and Machine Learning are not the answer").
      - __alexs 3y ago
        It's quite interesting that someone would make an account on HN just to come and argue the government side on this.
- ben_w 3y ago
  Spam is an interesting choice, given that the US Republicans are having a lawsuit about Google spam filtering blocking their campaign emails. Regardless of the merits of the particular case, the possibility of doing so exists and this is bad enough even when it is a private company and isn't being kept secret by court order like LavaBit, nor likewise when we have evidence of agents misusing their powers to spy on people they fancy AKA "LOVEINT", nor likewise when we have evidence of legally required technological measures becoming abusable by hackers e.g. the downgrade attacks to the 40-bit "export grade" cyphers from the 90s still popping up in the 2010s.

Subject matter experts have unanimously said such a technology is not possible to implement safely.

finned 3y ago

[dead]

__alexs 3y ago
I was obviously being rhetorical. "Fixable in practice" is really not a sufficient rebuttal when the people tasked with actually building this stuff have given clear and specific reasons why building this stuff safely is impossible. That the government think it's totally fine if the government have the power to listen in on everything is not especially surprising. The problem is most people don't actually trust the government with this power.
- finned 3y ago
  Pointing out that specific objections are fixable in practice is just a summary point - they wrote a detailed paper on this topic, which is worth reading in full: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2207.09506.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/2207.09506.pdf Do you have a reasonable counterargument to any of the points they make in this work?
  - __alexs 3y ago
    And yet Apple killed CSAM scanning months after this paper was published. Perhaps because the paper does nothing (and admits as much) to counter the issues that Apple raised about actually building and operating such a technology safely. I am familiar with this area of technology but by no means an expert. However the vast majority of people who appear to actually have experience building and running these systems all seem to disagree with the government that this is actually cool and safe and generally give much better explanations as to why that's the case than the government do. And so I side with them. Citing more vague government sources that don't directly contradict the work of the people building the things isn't a very convincing argument to me.
    - finned 3y ago
      Apple makes its choices for commercial reasons, so it will be interesting to see if they choose to introduce their client-side CSAM scanning for UK customers, or pull iMessage from this market like they threatened (which was probably an empty threat). If they go for the former, and implement their system in line with the principles that Levy and Robinson set out, would you change your mind? As this would be an indication that actually it can work in the field, if the political will is there.
      - __alexs 3y ago
        No it would be an indication that Apple like money more than the privacy and safety of their users which would not be entirely surprising.
  - pera 3y ago
    The paper you are citing does not support your argument here, I would suggest you to read for instance section 6.3 where they include some of the common concerns regarding client-side scanning, or the conclusion of section 7 ("Why AI and Machine Learning are not the answer").
    - __alexs 3y ago
      It's quite interesting that someone would make an account on HN just to come and argue the government side on this.
ben_w 3y ago
Spam is an interesting choice, given that the US Republicans are having a lawsuit about Google spam filtering blocking their campaign emails. Regardless of the merits of the particular case, the possibility of doing so exists and this is bad enough even when it is a private company and isn't being kept secret by court order like LavaBit, nor likewise when we have evidence of agents misusing their powers to spy on people they fancy AKA "LOVEINT", nor likewise when we have evidence of legally required technological measures becoming abusable by hackers e.g. the downgrade attacks to the 40-bit "export grade" cyphers from the 90s still popping up in the 2010s.