Apple enabling client-side CSAM scanning on iPhone tomorrow

Post by kaba0 » Thu, Aug 05, 2021, 8:47 AM UTC

pndy wrote: post #260

rinron wrote: post #118

This matches up with how I view Apples corporate thinking. "we know what's best" "the consumer is not to be trusted". Apple limits access to hardware, system settings, they block apps that don't meet moral standards, are "unsafe", or just might cause apple to not make as much money. They do not significantly care what people say they want after all they know best. A lot of people love not having options and having th…

This isn't exclusive to Apple - Microsoft recently decided that starting from August Windows Defender will have the option for blocking PUAs enabled by default for those users who doesn't have other third-party security software [1]. This also I belive falls under "we know what's best" and "the customer is not to be trusted" or "is too stupid to run things by on its own". This does looks good on paper - caring for cu…

Post by aethertron » Thu, Aug 05, 2021, 8:50 AM UTC

durovo wrote: post #274

keyme wrote: post #221

Dear humans, 1) You willingly delegated the decision of what code is allowed to run on your devices to the manufacturer (2009). Smart voices warned you of today's present even then. 2) You willingly got yourself irrevocably vendor-locked by participating in their closed social networks, so that it's almost impossible to leave (2006). 3) You willingly switched over essentially all human communication to said social ne…

If it seems like this scanning is working as advertised, this will be a great marketing stunt for Apple. Actual predators will stop using Apple products out of fear of getting caught and they will be forced to use Android. Now any person who owns an Android is a potential predator. Also, if you are trying to jailbreak your iPhone, you are a potential predator.

Post by kaba0 » Thu, Aug 05, 2021, 8:52 AM UTC

zepto wrote: post #99

13of40 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

False positives, what if someone can poison the set of hashes, engineered collisions, etc. And what happens when you come up positive - does the local sheriff just get a warrant and SWAT you at that point? Is the detection of a hash prosecutable? Is it enough to get your teeth kicked in, or get you informally labeled a pedo by your local police? On the flip side, since it's running on the client, could actual pedophi…

False positives are clearly astronomically unlikely. Not a real issue. Engineered collisions seem unlikely too. Not impossible. Unless there is a straight up cryptographic defect in the hash algorithm, it seems hard to see how engineered collisions could be made to happen at any scale.

Post by tomaskafka » Thu, Aug 05, 2021, 8:54 AM UTC

zepto wrote: post #22

robbiet480 wrote: post #2

This has worrying privacy implications. I hope Apple makes a public announcement about this but wouldn’t be surprised if they don’t. I also would expect EFF will get on this shortly.

What are the implications?

Post by aethertron » Thu, Aug 05, 2021, 8:56 AM UTC

gorgoiler wrote: post #234

keyme wrote: post #221

Dear humans, 1) You willingly delegated the decision of what code is allowed to run on your devices to the manufacturer (2009). Smart voices warned you of today's present even then. 2) You willingly got yourself irrevocably vendor-locked by participating in their closed social networks, so that it's almost impossible to leave (2006). 3) You willingly switched over essentially all human communication to said social ne…

> closed social networks It’s not clear that governments would give the open social networks an easier ride either. It could be argued that distributed FOSS developers are easier to pressurise into adding back doors, unless we officially make EFF our HR/Legal department. The other problem is workers have a right to be paid. The alternatives are FOSS and/or distributed social media. Who in good conscience would ask a…