Apple enabling client-side CSAM scanning on iPhone tomorrow

Post by onetimeusename » Thu, Aug 05, 2021, 6:00 AM UTC

0xy wrote: post #58

3pt14159 wrote: post #47

I'm really conflicted about this. For context, I deeply hate the abuse of children and I've worked on a contract before that landed 12 human traffickers in custody that were smuggling sex slaves across boarders. I didn't need to know details about the victims in question, but it's understood that they're often teenagers or children. So my initial reaction when reading this Twitter thread was "let's get these bastards…

The NCMEC database that Apple is likely using to match hashes, contains countless non-CSAM pictures that are entirely legal not only in the U.S. but globally. This should be reason enough for you to not support the idea. From day 1, it's matching legal images and phoning home about them. Increasing the scope of scanning is barely a slippery slope, they're already beyond the stated scope of the database.

Post by bennyp101 » Thu, Aug 05, 2021, 6:02 AM UTC

Post by hnick » Thu, Aug 05, 2021, 6:03 AM UTC

akersten wrote: post #100

If you like this, I have some other innovations that you may be interested in: * A car that automatically pulls over when a police cruiser attempts to intercept you * A front door that unlocks when a cop knocks * A camera that uses AI to detect and prevent the photography of minors, police, and critical infrastructure * A Smart TV that counts the number of people in your living room to ensure you aren't performing an…

Post by MikeUt » Thu, Aug 05, 2021, 6:04 AM UTC

ChrisKnott wrote: post #131

MikeUt wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Unshared data shouldn't be subject to search. Once it's shared, I can make several cases for an automated scan, but a cloud backup of personal media should be kept private. Our control of our own privacy matters. Not for the slippery slope argument or for the false positive argument, but for its own sake. We shouldn't be assuming the worst of people without cause or warrant. I have a much simpler rule: Your device…

I don't think this rule makes any sense, because it just abstracts all the argument into the word "betray". The vast majority of iPhone users won't consider it a betrayal that they can't send images of child abuse, any more than they consider it a betrayal that it doesn't come jailbroken. The victims of child abuse depicted in these images may well have considered it a betrayal by Apple that they allowed their privac…

Post by azinman2 » Thu, Aug 05, 2021, 6:04 AM UTC

0xy wrote: post #98

oh_sigh wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So are we talking about images which are not actually CSAM but a reasonable person would consider to be CSAM if they encountered them? Or is it just the README.txt for whatever popular bittorrent client?

A reasonable person would call it a normal picture if they encountered it in isolation. Like I said, content which is not even borderline are included. By both a legal and moralistic standard they're not CSAM. Not even nearly. Of course, this is a minority of the content in the database. But even 1 such image is gross neglect of stated purpose in my book.