notJim

27 ms·

271.
by notJim 5y ago
I'm curious for folks who like solutions like this, have you ever had a vulnerability in production? I would be shocked if most software engineers haven't had at least one outdated package, or one line of poorly-escaped javascript
272.
by notJim 5y ago
Have folks in the US seen many of these around? I haven't seen one yet.
273.
by notJim 5y ago
I feel like everyone calls it the Mach-E anyway, rather than the Mustang.
274.
by notJim 5y ago
Wasn’t there a study in the last couple years showing evidence that diet soda causes cancer?
275.
by notJim 5y ago
You get used to it after a while. I actually sometimes prefer a Coke Zero because of its unique taste (though I try to avoid soda altogether.)
276.
by notJim 5y ago
You are not engaging with my argument in good faith. This has been a terrible waste of time.
277.
by notJim 5y ago
The size of N doesn't really matter. I'm sure Apple ships large PRs in every release, as any software company does.
278.
by notJim 5y ago
> Until a 1-line code change happens that hooks it into UIImage. I really don't understand this view. You are using proprietary software, you are always an N-line change away from someone doing something you don't like. This si
279.
by notJim 5y ago
They can, but they say they don't. Of course if you're uploading data to their servers (and to a lesser extent, using their OS), you are trusting them to some degree.
280.
by notJim 5y ago
Apple management changing would be a massive threat regardless of these premises. Apple has gone to bat for encryption and privacy to a greater degree than Google, for example, and that's because of their current management. You should
281.
by notJim 5y ago
But people consider that bad! With this system, Apple can never look at your photos in the cloud. They are a pipe for the bits, but they don't examine the contents, except on your device. I'm not saying I necessarily agree that th
282.
by notJim 5y ago
> this could still be poisoned by Five Eyes participants, and that it does not preclude state actors forcing Apple to replicate this functionality for other purposes The thing is, if this is your threat model you're already screwed.
283.
by notJim 5y ago
> Speaking purely personally, whether the scanning happens immediately-before-upload on my phone or immediately-after-upload in the cloud doesn't really make a difference to me. What I find interesting is that so many people find it
284.
by notJim 5y ago
I'm not sure what you mean by chunks of images. My understanding is that it's a perceptual hash meant to determine if it's the same image, with minor adjustments like cropping or adjusting the colors. There is no AI/ML c
285.
by notJim 5y ago
> You're painting people who are against on device scanning as being pro-hosting kiddie porn, and that's a terrible base for an argument. I do no such thing in my revised statement. I'm saying there's a tradeoff, and
286.
by notJim 5y ago
I'll give you "exact match", but what he means about scanning is that there is no scanning of the device for photos. The process is run as part of the iCloud upload process. Not all photos on your device are uploaded to iClou
287.
by notJim 5y ago
Thanks, it sounds like you're definitely right.
288.
by notJim 5y ago
For example? I found it clarifying.
289.
by notJim 5y ago
Thank you. This does not support your claim, however. 1) That is an MD5 hash, not a perceptual hash. Apple is not using md5s. 2) It is a false positive, not bad info in the database. All involved acknowledge the possibility of false positiv
290.
by notJim 5y ago
I skimmed this, and don't see anything that says the DB contains non-CSAM.
291.
by notJim 5y ago
This article just says "iCloud," not specifically Photos. My understanding is that they previously scanned iCloud Mail, but not iCloud Photos. I don't have a link handy unfortunately, and don't have time to dig it up aga
292.
by notJim 5y ago
> And people who worked with NCMEC's database said it contains non CSAM images. Where did you see that? I tried to find more info about it, but I didn't find anything.
293.
by notJim 5y ago
> They are now frightened if their photos could be stolen by someone and marketed as child porn. That sounds bad, someone high up at Apple should do an interview clarifying that that's not what's happening!
294.
by notJim 5y ago
There is a good amount of confusion throughout this very thread about what this is.
295.
by notJim 5y ago
In the interview, Craig discusses this. They did not previously scan iCloud photos because they consider it too invasive. They consider this less invasive, because Apple does not look at the content of your photo, except on the device. So t
296.
by notJim 5y ago
> This becomes a bad faith argument the moment you start trying to browbeat people over "being comfortable hosting kiddie porn." Fair enough, I could have phrased this more carefully. But my point stands, so I'll rephrase
297.
by notJim 5y ago
It’s not a flag, the feature is part of the iCloud upload process. No upload, no scan. Of course a code change could do anything. The point of the feature is to prevent people from using iCloud to distribute CSAM. If you’re recording it wit
298.
by notJim 5y ago
Completely agree with this. But apples perspective is that on-device scanning prevents them from looking at your photos in the cloud at all. This is actually more secure than other cloud providers that do all kinds of shit with your photos.
299.
by notJim 5y ago
He said it in the interview and it was in the initial announcements. This is exactly the confusion he’s talking about.
300.
by notJim 5y ago
> The problem is you won't hear from them once they start scanning everything. What makes you say this? They announced this change after all. Why wouldn’t they announce future changes?

More ›